similar to: [LLVMdev] Is anyone working on an AMD64 port?

On 9/9/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > You wrote: > >> The NIST F77 test suite doesn't seem to be compatible with gfortran at > >> all, > > Actually, the entire suite compiles flawlessly with gfortran. > > See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranResults > > Was that true of GCC 4.0.1?

On 9/9/06, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/9/06, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/9/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > > You wrote: > > > >> The NIST F77 test suite doesn't seem to be compatible with

On 9/9/06, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc at gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/9/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > You wrote: > > >> The NIST F77 test suite doesn't seem to be compatible with gfortran at > > >> all, > > > Actually, the entire suite compiles flawlessly with

Hi Steven Sorry for the late reply, due to mail congestion and high traffic at the LLVM developers site. I don't think someone is working on a AMD64 port. Feel free to post patches to this forum, we appreciate all the help we can get. Welcome to LLVM. /Henrik >Hi, > >Is anyone working on an AMD64 backend for LLVM? I'd like to see >it have one and if nobody's

Another option might be g95 instead of gfortran. I haven't used it for a while, but I seem to recall it working fine in gcc 4.0.1. On 9/11/06, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/9/06, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/9/06, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 9/9/06, Chris

You wrote: > The NIST F77 test suite doesn't seem to be compatible with gfortran at > all, Actually, the entire suite compiles flawlessly with gfortran. See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranResults Gr. Steven

Hi, in a thread this afternoon about compiling the Fortran SPEC2000 to LLVM bytecode, Chris mentioned that it should be possible to compile to LLVM with the gfortran front end, although no one has necessarily tried it. I was surprised (and happy) to hear this, as under the impression that it would require a "complete rewrite of the gfortran backend" [1]. Now, I probably misinterpreted

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Steven Bosscher wrote: > You wrote: >> The NIST F77 test suite doesn't seem to be compatible with gfortran at >> all, > Actually, the entire suite compiles flawlessly with gfortran. > See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranResults Was that true of GCC 4.0.1? -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > Hi, in a thread this afternoon about compiling the Fortran SPEC2000 to > LLVM bytecode, Chris mentioned that it should be possible to compile > to LLVM with the gfortran front end, although no one has necessarily > tried it. Yup. > I was surprised (and happy) to hear this, as under the impression that > it would require a

Reid Spencer wrote: > On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 18:54 +0100, Nicola Lugato wrote: > >>I've made some other test and it looks like it don't remove even >>simple malloc/free couple. Maybe there's something wrong in the way i >>use the opt command. > > No, there's not. LLVM doesn't provide the transform you want. As Chris > mentioned, if you open a

On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, Martin > >> llvm-gcc-4.2-2.5 is failing to build from source on arm, sparc, >> powerpc and ia64, only succeeding on i386 and amd64: >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=llvm-gcc-4.2;dist=unstable >> so it looks like the 2.5 release was never properly tested before it >> was published.

Dear all, I packaged syslinux 6.03-pre9 on AMD64 Debian Sid, however, the problem is, I have problem to use it for PXE booting (BIOS mode). It always gives me "Failed to load COM32 file vesamenu.c32". I am sure all the settings are correct because if I switch to the prebuilt syslinux downloaded from

On 8/3/09, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > > Thanks. Do you have fixes for the other ARM bloopers? This is the > > forthcoming Debian version and it's now dying on arm-gnueabi when it > > links cc1-dummy saying > > Please use the current Top-of-the-Tree version. Sorry, that's not an option as I'm trying to fix the Debian

Hello, I see a Xen hypervisor package for AMD64 in Lenny and unstable, but no xen-kernel for AMD64. Is there a linux-image-2.6-xen-amd64 package planned for Lenny? With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- http://www.vandervlis.nl/

Hello! I was looking around for a solution which would allow me to un-forward already locally forwarded port but had no luck. So I decided to try and add it myself. I am not a good C coder, in fact, I've never really coded under unix before(it's just half a year since I fully moved from windowz). Here is what I made by now:

On Aug 21, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Aug 19, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > >> On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> >>> Hello, Martin >>> >>>> llvm-gcc-4.2-2.5 is failing to build from source on arm, sparc, >>>> powerpc and ia64, only succeeding on i386 and amd64: >>>>

[I'm not subscribed to this list, please CC me on replies] Hi, well, the topic says it all ;) I want to know if it's safe to use them (yes, i know it's not safe, but if someone says 'they fucked my computer' i will know i can't use them. If noone says anything i will find someone to test them ;)) Thanks. -- Piotrek irc: #debian.pl Mors Drosophilis melanogastribus!

Is anyone using Ext3 on a 2.4.x kernel with software raid5? Does it work correctly? Last I checked noone had tried it yet, but that was before I went away on vacation. -- Daniel R. Bidwell | bidwell@andrews.edu Andrews University Information Technology Services If two always agree, one of them is unnecessary "Friends don't let friends do DOS" "In theory, theory and practice

On Aug 19, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > >> Hello, Martin >> >>> llvm-gcc-4.2-2.5 is failing to build from source on arm, sparc, >>> powerpc and ia64, only succeeding on i386 and amd64: >>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=llvm-gcc-4.2;dist=unstable >>> so it

Hello, Martin > llvm-gcc-4.2-2.5 is failing to build from source on arm, sparc, > powerpc and ia64, only succeeding on i386 and amd64: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=llvm-gcc-4.2;dist=unstable > so it looks like the 2.5 release was never properly tested before it > was published. Unfortunately, ia64 and sparc were never considered as a 'tier-1' targets