similar to: [LLVMdev] hash_map issues with Visual Studio

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 400 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] hash_map issues with Visual Studio"

2010 Oct 19
2
[LLVMdev] hash_map
Hello, I want to use some code written for program dependence graph iteration, but this code uses hash_map (#include "llvm/ADT/hash_map") which i think remove from llvm, does anyone know how can i use hsah_map or simply replace that? Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:
2009 Oct 13
0
[LLVMdev] hash extras
So, after digging around in the old llvm/ADT/hash_map, I think I discovered the problem. Now, if you want to include llvm/ADT/HashExtras.h, you have to include the hash_map h file from your system (ext/hash_map in my case) and define HASH_NAMESPACE, before you include llvm/ADT/HashExtras. It might be good to include some documentation about that for those using HashExtras. Regards, Ryan
2009 Mar 09
2
[LLVMdev] hash_set and hash_map?
Hi, I saw that Nick Lewycky removed the LLVM portable hash_map and hash_sets. My research group was relying on those classes. What replaces hash_map and hash_set? The LLVM implementation was very convenient as there is no equivalent in STL, and Microsoft's implementation had a different name, as does the C++ 0X implementation. Thanks. Tom Jablin
2019 Feb 04
5
Removing deprecated <ext/hash_set>, <ext/hash_map> and <ext/__hash>
Hi, Libc++ has been shipping the <ext/hash_set>, <ext/hash_map> and <ext/__hash> headers for a while and they are deprecated. Those headers contain data structures like __gnu_cxx::hash_map that have replacements like std::unordered_map. I would like to remove those headers. I've put up a patch for review but I won't commit it until we have a sort of plan because I know
2019 Feb 06
5
[libcxx-dev] Removing deprecated <ext/hash_set>, <ext/hash_map> and <ext/__hash>
> On Feb 5, 2019, at 23:18, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > FWIW, I'm pretty sure we still have plenty of code using them. We've not done any analysis to see what timeframe that code could be be updated on -- our focus has been on *adopting* libc++ (and easing that path), not removing the uses of weird things that it also supports. I'll point out
2004 May 01
1
[LLVMdev] compiling LLVM from CVS under SuSE 9.1 (finished!)
> This is fixed in CVS. You might consider upgrading to LLVM CVS, > especially if you are interested in looking at performance issues: several > important performance related patches have gone in since LLVM 1.2. OK, now i've really upgraded to CVS, but it looks like state of sources is "not compilable" :( indeed: *************************** Linking llc release executable
2009 Oct 13
2
[LLVMdev] hash extras
I am trying to upgrade my code to use the latest version of llvm from svn. Whenever I include "llvm/ADT/HashExtras.h", I get error messages like the following. Does anyone know what is going on? Thanks for any help. llvm[1]: Compiling Aux.cpp for Debug build (PIC) In file included from /home/lefever/work/memrep/src/compiler/include/Aux.h:4, from Aux.cpp:1:
2017 Jul 01
0
[PATCH] Add new hash.c32 module
diff U3 syslinux-6.04-pre1/com32/modules/Makefile b/com32/modules/Makefile --- syslinux-6.04-pre1/com32/modules/Makefile Fri Mar 04 02:09:01 2016 +++ b/com32/modules/Makefile Fri Jun 30 20:09:01 2017 @@ -25,9 +25,9 @@ # All-architecture modules MOD_ALL = cat.c32 cmd.c32 config.c32 cptime.c32 cpuid.c32 cpuidtest.c32 \ - debug.c32 dir.c32 dmitest.c32 hexdump.c32 host.c32 ifcpu.c32 \ -
2012 Feb 29
1
[LLVMdev] Proposed implementation of N3333 hashing interfaces for LLVM (and possible libc++)
On 29 February 2012 09:35, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > I still think we can do more, but it's already much faster than the existing LLVM one except for the issue Tobias pointed out w/ modulo-4 key sizes. I'm going to investigate this OK, but this is a VERY big exception! Almost any non-string data anyone wants to hash will be a multiple of 4 bytes in
2004 Sep 26
2
[LLVMdev] patches and scons
The scons file that I posted yesterday is broken... I've not taken in account the commit of 2 days ago that modified *iterator.in* and friends. I've updated it and now it works again; inside it you can find comments about what files currently are NOT compiled and why (hint appreciated!) Attached to this email you can find it and a new series of patches against current CVS, that I hope
2004 Dec 03
2
[LLVMdev] [Fwd: Updated LLVM Visual Studio project files]
Could someone please apply this patch to the Win32 support so that Morten and Jeff can handle the recent changes? I can't do it because I"m on the road with only email access. Thanks, Reid. -----Forwarded Message----- > From: Morten Ofstad <morten at hue.no> > To: Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> > Subject: Updated LLVM Visual Studio project files > Date: Thu,
2004 Nov 16
2
[LLVMdev] Fixes for windows version
I have some patches of my own: * An improvement on Morten's fix to Signals.cpp. * Undo the breakage to system.vcproj (Signals.cpp was being built twice as a result). * Fix a class/struct inconsistency. * Remove unneeded #includes from win32 fSystem files. I've also determined why VC++ complains about deprecated destructors when using hash_map. Because it's not ANSI (yet),
2004 Nov 16
0
[LLVMdev] Fixes for windows version
Jeff, On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 21:43, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I have some patches of my own: > > * An improvement on Morten's fix to Signals.cpp. > > * Undo the breakage to system.vcproj (Signals.cpp was being built twice > as a result). > > * Fix a class/struct inconsistency. > > * Remove unneeded #includes from win32 fSystem files. > Thanks for the
2004 Nov 16
2
[LLVMdev] Fixes for windows version
>>I've also determined why VC++ complains about deprecated destructors >>when using hash_map. Because it's not ANSI (yet), Microsoft decided to >>move it from the std namespace to the stdext namespace. Use of >>std::hash_map is therefore deprecated. Similar shenanigans have been >>committed by gcc from one version to another. I see where this is
2004 Oct 14
2
[LLVMdev] Linker problems with Visual Studio
I finally managed to compile a working fibonacci example (using the interpreter, I'm still working on porting the x86 backend). The final problem was that I couldn't find a way to force the linker to include the Dominators.obj file since there were no references to it. There is an option to the linker to stop it from stripping unreferenced code, but it still doesn't pull the object
2004 Oct 14
0
[LLVMdev] Linker problems with Visual Studio
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Morten Ofstad wrote: > I finally managed to compile a working fibonacci example (using the > interpreter, I'm still working on porting the x86 backend). The final > problem was that I couldn't find a way to force the linker to include > the Dominators.obj file since there were no references to it. There is > an option to the linker to stop it from
2005 Apr 22
0
[LLVMdev] tabs
I found 179 more *.{c,cpp,h} files with tabs. Unfortunately, the tabs stops used vary so blindly expanding them messes up alignment in many cases :( Index: examples/BFtoLLVM/BFtoLLVM.cpp Index: include/llvm/AbstractTypeUser.h Index: include/llvm/GlobalVariable.h Index: include/llvm/InstrTypes.h Index: include/llvm/IntrinsicInst.h Index: include/llvm/ADT/PostOrderIterator.h Index:
2004 Oct 25
2
[LLVMdev] Remaining Visual C patches
Hi, several of the patches I submitted last week have not yet been applied, and most of it was really uncontroversial stuff like adding some #includes and some typecasts, fixing alloca for visual C etc. I guess I just wrote too many mails so it was lost in the process, so here is a diff which includes all changes I have made, except those related to hash_map differences since my solution
2004 Sep 02
3
[LLVMdev] Native win32 port
Hi all, I've read with interest the threads of August about a win32 port (without cygwin), and as a joke yesterday I tried compiling LLVM on win32 with VC7.1, targeting the HowToUseJIT example... Well, apart from obvious problems, it went pretty well. I cannot reach the end of the process, but I'm feeling it's not too far. So the point is: Are you interested in taking in account
2004 Apr 30
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM benchmarks against GCC
On Sat, 1 May 2004, [koi8-r] "Valery A.Khamenya[koi8-r] " wrote: > > > yesterday I got new SuSE 9.1 DVD, so i am going to enter this > > > river again. Perhaps, this time all will be fine. > > > > Sounds great, please let me know how it goes. > > SuSE 9.1 is running OK. > after 30 minute of compilation i get first errors: > *********************