similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM 1.5 Release Plan

On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 01:59:09PM -0500, John Criswell wrote: > Misha: > Release Notes > Writing an LLVM Backend I think the others have done a great job with the first one, and they are much more qualified to do it than I am. I sprinkled the second one with some fresh links to other docs. -- Misha Brukman :: http://misha.brukman.net :: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu

Actually, Misha, that won't work. The -C option is used directly in docs/Makefile. So the change will have to go into docs/Makefile. Either that or upgrade install to version 5. Reid. On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 11:33, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:21:20PM -0600, Feng Chen wrote: > > llvm[1]: Installing HTML documentation > >

On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 13:59 -0500, John Criswell wrote: > Reid: > Compiler Driver (llvmc) Guide > LLVM Makefile Guide These two are done. No changes. Seems these were maintained fairly well. There also hasn't been much activity in these areas. The Bytecode Format is another matter .. still looking at it. Reid. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 11:30:45AM -0600, Feng Chen wrote: > However, although the configuration and installation process doesn't > report any error/warning, the llvmc cannot work. It just says: > Unexpected unknown exception occurred :( > > Do you have any clue about that? Have you compiled and installed llvm-gcc/llvm-g++? llvmc is not a compiler, it's just a compiler

On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:23:06PM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > > 1. Name = llvmcc > > > > > > Why not 'llvmc' "llvm compiler"? What does the extra C mean? > > > > I dunno. Perhaps cause Misha liked it. But, you do have a point there. LLVMCC = LLVM Compiler Collection, a la GCC After all, it's going to be the

On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 11:39:27AM -0800, Reid Spencer wrote: > Actually, Misha, that won't work. Sorry, Reid, but I think it will, for the following reason: I don't really know what the -c (lowercase) option does, but install says it's ignored anyway, so that's irrelevant for GNU install. We're talking about the -C option (uppercase). > The -C option is used directly

On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 15:03, Chris Lattner wrote: > > Since there's been little feedback on the design document I sent out, > > some decisions are being made in order to progress the work. If you have > > strong feelings about any of these, voice them now! > > > > 1. Name = llvmcc > > Why not 'llvmc' "llvm compiler"? What does the extra C

It works. Thanks! However, although the configuration and installation process doesn't report any error/warning, the llvmc cannot work. It just says: Unexpected unknown exception occurred :( Do you have any clue about that? Feng -----Original Message----- From: Misha Brukman [mailto:brukman at uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 2:00 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Cc:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 15:03, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > Since there's been little feedback on the design document I sent out, > > > some decisions are being made in order to progress the work. If you have > > > strong feelings about any of these, voice them now! > > > > > > 1. Name = llvmcc > >

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:23:06PM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > > > 1. Name = llvmcc > > > > > > > > Why not 'llvmc' "llvm compiler"? What does the extra C mean? > > > > > > I dunno. Perhaps cause Misha liked it. But, you do have a point there. > > LLVMCC = LLVM

On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 19:51 -0500, Misha Brukman wrote: > The second one is a "serious policy violation", which isn't as clear to > me what the bug reporter is saying, but it mentions warnings during > doxygen build and missing fonts and related issues that I'm not quite > following. (CCing the bug and thus the submitter) sounds like a missing built-depends, at

Reid Spencer wrote: >Yes, that's right! > >In fact, shortly the process of doing that will get easier with the >llvmc (compiler driver) tool that I'm working on. You write your >compiler to generate either bytecode or LLVM assembly and a > > Does that mean the front end must decide between emiting bytecode for interpretting/JITing and LLVM assembly for native

I have not used llvmc to build ARM binaries, but llvm-gcc does work.There's a script to build llvm-gcc x86 -> ARM cross-compiler in llvm/utils/crosstool/ARM/ . 2009/6/29 Juan Carlos Martinez Santos <juanc.martinez.santos at gmail.com> > I am using the below configuration: > > ./configure --with-llvmgccdir=/home/jcmartin78/LLVM/llvm-gcc4.2 >

I am using the below configuration: ./configure --with-llvmgccdir=/home/jcmartin78/LLVM/llvm-gcc4.2 --prefix=/home/jcmartin78/local --enable-optimized=1 --enable-debug-runtime --enable-jit --enable-targets=arm --target=arm When I use LLVMC to compile a simple program I get this: $ llvmc hello.c llc: error auto-selecting target for module 'No available targets are compatible with this

Alexander Friedman wrote: > On May 17, John Criswell wrote: > >>Dear All, >> >>I've finished building binaries for the GCC frontends and am now testing >> the 1.5 release branch on i386/Linux, Sparc/Solaris, and PowerPC/MacOS X. >> >>I'm looking for volunteers to test LLVM 1.5 on platforms that we don't >>have in house. I'm

Constant *strcon==ConstantArray::get("Value : %d\n"); Sorry Typo. On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 03:45:33PM -0700, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > > I have this call instruction to printf inserted which is causing > > an assertion failure. Any pointers to where I am wrong : > > > > Function

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 03:50:09PM -0500, Patrick Meredith wrote: > MetaSplit is an anlysis I just finished writing. It doesn't alter > anything, all it does is build a set of "program instructions". For > some reason even though if I run it with any other combination of > passes I've found, anytime I run it with mem2reg I get a seg fault in > dyn_cast!

Thanks Misha. I tried the "gcc -dM -E /tmp/file.c | grep __sparcv9" but there was no output. Maybe this is the probelm, I do have CXX = g++ -mcpu=v9 CC := gcc -mcpu=v9 in the Makefile.config. Do I need to add -m64 as well? Thanks. Shukang On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Misha Brukman wrote: > Is your compiler configured to define __sparcv9 when it compiles? > The following should tell

Hi There, I've just started reading about LLVM and I just wanted to make sure that it can do what I was hoping it could do. Am I correct in assuming that I could use LLVM as a backend for a compiler, emiting LLVM byte codes which could either be natively compiled (Sparc and x86) or byte code interpretted / JITed??

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:52:28 -0700 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 08:07, Jeff Cohen wrote: > > OK. I've built the front end without any heartaches, but I did > > encountered the following glitches: > > > > The documentation of --with-llvmgccdir is a bit ambiguous. I had to > > try several paths