similar to: [LLVMdev] Hash Bang

Karl, I think you meant to cc the llvmdev list on this. Thank you for a more detailed explanation, it's much clearer to me now. I agree that making the execution of .bc files more transparent would make it more useable as a stand-alone binary format on Unix-like systems and adding programmable support to changing the #! line would prevent much of user error involved in modifying the run

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, Misha Brukman wrote: > Karl, I think you meant to cc the llvmdev list on this. > > Thank you for a more detailed explanation, it's much clearer to me now. That does make more sense to me too. > I agree that making the execution of .bc files more transparent would > make it more useable as a stand-alone binary format on Unix-like systems > and adding

Thanks Meador, The confusion point for me is that, does ! as an operator (bang operator) add any meaning to the strconcat? On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Meador Inge <meadori at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Sky Flyer <skylake007 at googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > I don't find anything helping me understand

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Sky Flyer <skylake007 at googlemail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I don't find anything helping me understand the llvm bang operator. In the > llvm TableGen language reference, it only says: > > 'TableGen also has “bang operators” which have a wide variety of meanings:' > > I would be very thankful if someone can explain it

Hello all, I don't find anything helping me understand the llvm bang operator. In the llvm TableGen language reference, it only says: 'TableGen also has “bang operators” which have a wide variety of meanings: *'* I would be very thankful if someone can explain it to me. e.g. what does "!strconcat" or "!if" mean? Cheers ES -------------- next part --------------

Dear All, I thought I would chime in with some ideas and opinions: o Configuration Files If it isn't too much trouble, I think we should go with XML for the following reasons: 1) We wouldn't need to implement a parsing library. There are several XML parsing libraries available, and I'm guessing that they're available in several different programming languages (Reid, am I

LLVMers, 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 2. The config file format will resemble Microsoft .ini files (name=value in sections) 3. -O set of options will control what gets done and what kind of output is

So I''ve decided to clean up the structure of my rails app and have been using named routes and storing certain controllers underneath other controllers where appropriate.. For example, I have an AdminController, as well as a ContentController. I decided to make ContentController a subclass of the AdminController, because the content management portion of the site is only accessible to

Hello, I'm trying to avoid having to design my own IR for a hobby language that needs safety guarantees similar to those of Java. Have there been any plans or attempts to write a safety verifier for llvm object code or define a set of easily verifiable instructions that can be translated to llvm quickly?

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Martin [iso-8859-1] Pärtel wrote: > I'm trying to avoid having to design my own IR for a hobby language that needs > safety guarantees similar to those of Java. Have there been any plans or > attempts to write a safety verifier for llvm object code or define a set of > easily verifiable instructions that can be translated to llvm quickly? Check out SAFECode:

> > Now I have other problem: I have a Module and I need generate a iostream > > (memory) with native x86 code (maybe elf/coff) to be executed later > (into > > the guest process space, without fork!!). I studied llc and lli, but > they > > don't help me much. Any idea? Are there any guy working in some like > that? > > There's two approaches that

I'm CC'ing the llvm-dev list because other people are more knowledgeable about the bytecode format/encoding than I am. Please follow-up the replies to the list. On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:27:53AM -0700, Yiping Fan wrote: > We also want to extend the llvm instructions/intrinsic > functions/types/passes to support our high-level synthesis for > hardware. First of all, we want to

On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 04:15:49PM -0700, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I don't know if it's under cvs. It's the "getting started" page > (http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/GettingStarted.html) in section "Getting > Started Quickly (A Summary)". But careful reading of the remainder of > the page does give the correct path. http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/* is a copy of

backgroud: ocfs2 dlm uses a hash table to store dlm_lock_resource objects. the often used lookup is performed on the hash table. problem: for usages that there are huge number of inodes(thus huge number of dlm_lock_resource objects) in a ocfs2 volume, the lookup performance becomes a problem. the lookup holds spin_lock which could put all others cpus into the state of aquring the spinlock. if

Yeah. We need to have more extra fields in the instruction. Fo example, during high-level synthesis, we must schedule an instruction to a certain control step (or cycle), and bind it to be execute on a certain functional unit, etc. Besides the in-memory exchange of the information, we also want on-disk exchange. That introduces the write-out/parse-in problem. Thanks ----- Original Message -----

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

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:25:23AM -0800, Robert Mykland wrote: > I'm the guy who is working on the LLVM bytecode documentation. The > document I have at present just supports the bytecodes my code > generator processes, though, which is far from all of them. As I get > farther along with my code generator I expect I'll get to the point > where everything kind of fits

Hi, I was trying to know if LLVM 1.5 works better with VC++ 2003 and to what extent. This link: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/releases/1.5/ Referred to in : http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/ReleaseNotes.html Is broken Where can I find more information? In particular: Can the LLVM be compiled using VC++ 2003? Does it generate bytecode and executable code? Thanks

does anyone knows how to get the Olden BM bytecode files? We're low on disk space and I don't want to build the whole test branch (even if i can, which I doubt, it failed last time i tried).

I'm the guy who is working on the LLVM bytecode documentation. The document I have at present just supports the bytecodes my code generator processes, though, which is far from all of them. As I get farther along with my code generator I expect I'll get to the point where everything kind of fits together for me and I can finish it up. In the meantime, people are welcome to what I have