similar to: [LLVMdev] hybrid source control

I have used Perforce also and fully agree it's wonderful. The only concern I have is with their license for open source projects. The only gotcha is that it must be renewed annually, and they reserve the right to not renew it (though they say they won't unreasonably deny renewals). Not sure how much this really matters, as Perforce strikes me as being one of those "do no

Hi everyone, Reid said: > Of the tools available, it seems that only subversion, arch, and > monotone are suitable for our purposes. But, we'd love to hear your > thoughts; especially if you have first-hand experience with these tools. Apart from using CVS as a client (as everyone does), I've only ever used Aegis (previous employer, for ~3 years) and Perforce (the employer

Does anybody know if there is some tool to convert from WHIRL to LLVM? maybe some project under development? a similar project? Thanks > > --- Duraid Madina <duraid at octopus.com.au> wrote: > > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:45:54 +0900 > > From: Duraid Madina <duraid at octopus.com.au> > > To: ahs3 at fc.hp.com, LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at

On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 08:02:38PM -0800, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I have used Perforce also and fully agree it's wonderful. The only > concern I have is with their license for open source projects. The > only gotcha is that it must be renewed annually, and they reserve the > right to not renew it (though they say they won't unreasonably deny > renewals). Not sure how much

On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 11:14, Francisco Puentes wrote: > Hi, everybody: > Hi Francisco > > I am a beginner with LLVM, in fact today was the first day that I use it. Welcome! > > I have several questions about LLVM: If you haven't already, a good place to start is the Getting Started Guide, at http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/GettingStarted.html > Can I use LLVM to

Andrew Lenharth wrote: > On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 05:04 +0900, Duraid Madina wrote: >> - No varargs > > What are your issues here? Or are they simply at the "not implemented > so I don't know" stage? The two bugs I mentioned (no varargs, no alloca) are pretty much two sides of the same coin: I'm ignoring the IA64 stack frame layout (for no good reason), so

Hello Duraid, Duraid Madina wrote on Wednesday, 11 May 2005: >> I've just tried building CVS/HEAD of llvm using gcc 4.0.0 that I >> have installed to /opt/gcc > ... then you should either add /opt/gcc/lib to /etc/ld.so.conf and > rerun ldconfig, or add /opt/gcc/lib to your LD_LIBRARY_PATH . > However, GCC 4.x definitely has issues building LLVM, at least on > ia64. Oh,

Hi all, This is just to announce that I have a FreeBSD x86 machine running the test suite more or less continuously: http://kinoko.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~builddonkey/ Of note is that it now runs Dejagnu tests. (Thanks, tonic+co!) I'm also tracking CVS breakage (internally, for now). At some later point, I'll make available more real-time information on "is CVS alive and if not,

Hi everyone, I've just checked in an IA64 backend to LLVM! Be warned, it's pretty rough right now. Here are some of the known defects: - No varargs - No alloca - No instruction scheduling/bundling of any sort ...or in other words, it breaks often and when it does work, it's a dog. On the plus side, it _does_ have a tasty new pattern instruction selector. :) Beyond fixing the

Hi Everyone, Sorry for the long overdue status update, as you might guess, the holidays have been busy for everyone. :) Here's your periodic dose of updates on the progress of LLVM, which takes us from the LLVM 1.4 release until present CVS. I appologize if I forgot anything! Big Things: 1. Brian contributed a new SparcV8 backend, which (unlike the SparcV9 backend) uses the

On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 05:04 +0900, Duraid Madina wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've just checked in an IA64 backend to LLVM! Be warned, it's pretty > rough right now. Here are some of the known defects: > > - No varargs What are your issues here? Or are they simply at the "not implemented so I don't know" stage? Namely, I am working on some varargs

On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 05:04 +0900, Duraid Madina wrote: > I've just checked in an IA64 backend to LLVM! Woo hoo! And There Was Much Rejoicing in IA64 Land :-). -- Ciao, al ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Al Stone Alter Ego: Linux & Open Source Lab Debian Developer Hewlett-Packard

LLVMers, The oversight group has been kicking around the idea of getting a better version control system than CVS. The problem is, we're not quite sure what "better" means. So, we thought we'd ask your opinions. If you're interested in this topic (and you should be if you're actively developing), please have a look at this site:

Oleg Smolsky wrote: > I've just tried building CVS/HEAD of llvm using gcc 4.0.0 that I have > installed to /opt/gcc ... then you should either add /opt/gcc/lib to /etc/ld.so.conf and rerun ldconfig, or add /opt/gcc/lib to your LD_LIBRARY_PATH . However, GCC 4.x definitely has issues building LLVM, at least on ia64. If you want to use LLVM in anger, I'd stick with 3.4 for now.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Duraid Madina wrote: >>> - No instruction scheduling/bundling of any sort >> >> So this one needs to be coordinated. Next week, I might see about >> adding MachineInstruction support to the SelectionDAG so you can load up >> a DAG post-ISel and then spit it back out scheduled. > > That would be much appreciated, particularly if it

> Itanium Everything checks out as expected. :) Duraid

You are right, the machine I am on is a AMD Opteron. I could probably generate working code for x86, but I am testing the implications of using 64 bits integers. The four weeks is not really important, it's just that it would be nice to have really fast code to showcase. Something related to this: to test the effect of 64 bits integers I replace all reference of int by long in my .ll file.

Hi, everybody: I am a beginner with LLVM, in fact today was the first day that I use it. I have several questions about LLVM: Can I use LLVM to compile several files (bytecode), scripts (char*) and link them with external libraries generating *only* one executable (all in memory)? Can I invoke externals functions from a guest (LLVM generated) code which exist in the host code (the code that

> The assert is at TargetLowering.cpp:138. > > Why is FP required? There's no particularly fundamental reason - while LLVM specifies a modest set of FP capabilities... > Most ARMs don't have an FPU. Should I add a fake > register class for MVT::f64? ...nothing will break if you just pretend f64 fits in your integer registers so long as you don't go anywhere near FP in

Hi again, and thanks (Reid) for your fast response: Yes, it works!!! Only changing the order of libraries in the Makefile. Nowaday I have my software with the capability of compile assembly, bytecode (from buffer and file) and link them with a set of libraries. It seems to work perfectly (I don't generate code yet). My real aim is to have a process (host) with execute several no-jit