similar to: [LLVMdev] status update soon

Thanks Anton and Chris, it works. On a side note is there a way to have llc preserve function names upon output to C so that external CPP files that link this file in will be able to find the correct functions. And how about name mangling? I assume this is something not taken care of by llc or at least from llvm-g++ to bytecode. Ashwin On 6/2/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > The only thing I can think of is that string.h is being #included and > has different signatures for memcpy and strncpy. Possibly "char" is not > signed on your machine (very unusual) or some of the parameters are > declared as "const". The problem is that the code generated by the C backend cannot include any system

Hi, Have you tried the new VC8 Beta? It's been out for less than 2 weeks: http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/visualc/default.aspx It's supposed to have improved standards compliance. Regards, -Eugene Talagrand On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:56:03 -0500 (CDT) > From: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> > Reply-To: llvmdev at

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote: > This certainly doesn't occur in gcc mainline. > In fact, I improved the error message, and added a error test to gcc > just yesterday. Yep, clang reports: t.c:4:12: error: read-only variable is not assignable arr[0] = 1; ~~~~~~ ^ 1 diagnostic generated. so this is specific to llvm-gcc somehow. -Chris > On 8/9/07, Chris

Chris, I am doing Cygwin builds at the moment so it will not be immediately attended to. Do you want it done for 2.0 ? Or could it be a post 2.0 patch which I suggest as 4.3 branch is not up for a release too soon ? Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Lattner" <sabre at nondot.org> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent:

Yes, sorry for not mentioning it. I added that header also Although I suppose that if I am not using Sparc there will be no problem (it's an Itanium 2 machine) Thanks --- Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, xavier wrote: > > > I commented this line and it is compiling now: > > > > extern void *malloc ARGS((unsigned)); > >

I commented this line and it is compiling now: extern void *malloc ARGS((unsigned)); I hope that will not cause a different kind of problem. What it is zalloc used for? Thanks --- Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, xavier wrote: > > > It seems that this happened before but I do not know the details: > >

This certainly doesn't occur in gcc mainline. In fact, I improved the error message, and added a error test to gcc just yesterday. On 8/9/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Nikhil A. Patil wrote: > > I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. > > Looks like a bug, please file a bugzilla entry. >

the proposed architecture (chris) doesn't seem to attack the phase ordering problem. through having independent instruction selection, instruction scheduling, and register allocation phases faciliate a modular design, but i believe the phase-coupled code generator generator high quality code on many architectures. espeically in the embedded system like a media/dsp processors with very limited

Hi Chris, This is a good idea and I started thinking in that direction already. But what I don't quite understand the TFs, how TFs are formed and which rules they should obey to. For example now: > PendingLoads created by the SelectionDAGLowering::getLoadFrom and then copied into the > TokenFactor node by SelectionDAGLowering::getRoot called from the >

misspellings: What's new, 1st paragraph: "nightly tester <http://llvm.org/nightlytest/>, llvm-config enhancEments"; 've found nothing wrong except of it :) On 8/8/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > Hi All, > > Here's the first draft of the LLVM 1.8 release notes. Please take a look > and send me any comments or feedback you

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Ben Chambers wrote: > How hard would it be to compile this pass and add it to the passes > that opt can run? Is this something I should be able to do relatively > quickly? What was the name of the file(s) that implemented the pass? It should be easy, modulo it bitrotting. It is already built as an opt pass. The filename was LowerConstantExpr.cpp IIRC. -Chris

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > i'd like to know what progress you guys have made (not on cvs?). Everything is in CVS. Noone is currently working on automating the pattern matching generator process yet. Before doing that, there are a few changes we want to make to the SelectionDAG interface. In particular, right now, the selection process basically works like this: #1.

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Nikhil A. Patil wrote: > I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. Looks like a bug, please file a bugzilla entry. -Chris > int func() > { > const int *arr; > arr[0] = 1; > } > > $ llvm-gcc main.c -c; echo $? > 0 > > $ gcc main.c -c > main.c: In function 'func': > main.c:4: error:

The only thing I can think of is that string.h is being #included and has different signatures for memcpy and strncpy. Possibly "char" is not signed on your machine (very unusual) or some of the parameters are declared as "const". Reid. On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 18:19, Eric Zimmerman wrote: > Chris, > > I'm fine with using JIT, but I'm trying to understand this

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Jeff Cohen wrote: > It will have to be Morten. I can't get ltdl.c to compile. But wasn't > the whole point of doing platform-specific DynamicLibrary.cpps to get > rid of ltdl.c? ltdl.c is part of libtool that is supposed to BE the cross-platform dynamic linker interface. However, for platforms it doesn't really support, using custom code makes perfect

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=75700 Oh, tWig. :) Yes, tree pattern matching is exactly the direction we are heading. We are slowly making the code generators more and more automatically generated as time goes on. The SelectionDAG infrastructure is mean to support exactly this (perform Tree or DAG pattern matching on the optimized DAG

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, Chris. > You wrote Friday, June 2, 2006, 9:27:25 PM: > CL> I don't see that failure. We'll need more info to reproduce the issue. > Got fixed by adding the folowing line in ther early beginning of > LowerAllocations.cpp file: > > static IncludeFile CUFENP((void*)createUnifyFunctionExitNodesPass); I committed

Hi, Given these C instructions: ============================== struct stru { struct stru *Next; }; struct list *NewStru = malloc ( sizeof ( struct stru ) ); struct list *tmp.3; ... tmp.3 = NewStru->Next; ============================== LLVM generates something like this: %tmp.0 = malloc %struct.stru ; <%struct.stru*> %tmp.3 = getelementptr %struct.stru* %tmp.0, int 0, uint 1 ;

I'm not sure if dejagnu is installed correctly. Is there any way to call it on the command line? I get this: ------------------- $ runtest --version | tee -a my_runtest.log WARNING: Couldn't find the global config file. Expect version is 5.21 Tcl version is 8.0 Framework version is 1.4.4 ------------------- and ------------------- $ ls /usr/local/share/dejagnu/