similar to: [LLVMdev] cforntend and llvm ir

On 4/19/06, Patrick Meredith <pmeredit at uiuc.edu> wrote: > I haven't seen anyone claim x86 linux objdir == srcdir, so I'll test it out. > Missed the 18th,but I'll try to have it done asap. > > > On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Robert L. Bocchino Jr. wrote: > I'll test on Darwin/PPC, precompiled llvmgcc, objdir == srcdir. > > Rob > Sorry for being

Is it possible to build the llvm runtime without building llvm-gcc/g++? -- www.smsglobal.net SMS Global Ltd Short Message Service For Seafarers

is it ok to have the same install directory for the llvm tools and llvm-gcc? -- www.smsglobal.net SMS Global Ltd Short Message Service For Seafarers

On 4/19/06, Rogelio Serrano <rogelio.serrano at gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/16/06, Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: > > > > I've put the pre-release tar balls here: > > http://llvm.org/prereleases/1.7/ > > > > The build failed on i686-pc-linux-gnu. > > llvm[2]: Flexing FileLexer.l > llvm[2]: Compiling FileLexer.cpp for Release build

Rogelio Serrano wrote: > is it ok to have the same install directory for the llvm tools and llvm-gcc? Yes. I don't see why it wouldn't work. -- John T. > > -- > www.smsglobal.net SMS Global Ltd Short Message Service For Seafarers > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu

I have flex version 2.5.31, gcc version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13), and am obviously using Debian. I would assume that the reason your build fails and mine succeeds in due to one (or more) of those things being different ;-) On Apr 19, 2006, at 2:19 AM, Rogelio Serrano wrote: > On 4/19/06, Patrick Meredith <pmeredit at uiuc.edu> wrote: >> I haven't seen anyone claim x86

Is there an llvm objc frontend we can play with? If none then is there being written now? -- SMS Global Ltd Short Message Service For Seafarers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20051213/c9765598/attachment.html>

On 4/16/06, Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: > > I've put the pre-release tar balls here: > http://llvm.org/prereleases/1.7/ > The build failed on i686-pc-linux-gnu. llvm[2]: Flexing FileLexer.l llvm[2]: Compiling FileLexer.cpp for Release build /home/rogelio/Desktop/llvm/utils/TableGen/FileLexer.l: In function 'int Filelex()':

I've put the pre-release tar balls here: http://llvm.org/prereleases/1.7/ I'm asking for help to test this release and to review documentation. If anyone can spare some time to help out, I would really appreciate it. The more people that test, the better this release will be. Secondly, now that the tarballs have been created, everyone is free to check in documentation changes into the

Hi, I just saw this thread. I work on llvm at Xilinx but I do not work on microblaze. I will check to see if there is any interest here at Xilinx to contribute resources to the maintenance of this backend. Thanks, Jeff On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Rogelio Serrano <rogelio.serrano at gmail.com>wrote: > > On Feb 6, 2013 4:52 AM, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at

Hi jeff! Any news? On Feb 9, 2013 1:53 AM, "Jeff Fifield" <fifield at mtnhigh.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I just saw this thread. I work on llvm at Xilinx but I do not work on > microblaze. > > I will check to see if there is any interest here at Xilinx to contribute > resources to the maintenance of this backend. > > Thanks, > Jeff > > > > On

On Feb 6, 2013 4:52 AM, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > The MBlaze backend seems to be essentially unmaintained since 2011. The maintainer (Wesley Peck who is BCC'ed) seems to have vanished, and in fact all emails to him are bouncing. > > I propose to remove the MBlaze backend on Friday if none step forward as a maintainer. Currently, folks

Hi , One of the things I am working on requires me to have a kernel and an initrd (as root filesystem , based on busybox) in one single image. I am trying to use initramfs for this, but there are a few things that I just can't figure out. As a test, I made a cpio archive of my own for the kernel source (plain 2.6.0-test5). Everything gets unpacked just fine during boot. Somehow I was

I tried building with linux-2.6.0-test7 build dies with: make[1]: Entering directory `/home/rogelio/src/klibc-0.80/klibc' gcc -Wp,-MD,./.fork.d -march=i386 -Os -fomit-frame-pointer -malign-functions=0 -malign-jumps=0 -malign-loops=0 -nostdinc -iwithprefix include -I../klibc -I../klibc/arch/i386/include -I../klibc/include/bits32 -D__KLIBC__ -DBITSIZE=32 -I../klibc/include

Im using snapshot 0.81. make[1]: Entering directory `/home/rogelio/src/klibc-0.81/klibc' gcc -Wp,-MD,./.getenvtest.d -march=i386 -Os -falign-functions=0 -falign-jumps=0 -falign-loops=0 -nostdinc -iwithprefix include -I../klibc -I../klibc/arch/i386/include -I../klibc/include/bits32 -D__KLIBC__ -DBITSIZE=32 -I../klibc/include -I../linux/include -W -Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wwrite-strings

This is a forward of a question from the SourceForge LLVM forum. If anyone has experience with Cygwin and building the C front-end there, please reply and CC Alex. --- Post by Alex Vinokur below --- =============== Windows 2000 GNU gcc 3.3.3 (cygwin special) =============== ./configure ./make I have got compilation error ------------------------------- make[1]: Entering directory

Hi, When compiling the cfrontend for Linux/PPC architecture on a powermac G5, i got the following error : -------------------------------Compilation error listing if [ -f stmp-dirs ]; then true; else touch stmp-dirs; fi make GCC_FOR_TARGET="/usr/local/home/cyrille/project/llvm/cfrontend/build/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/local/home/cyrille/project/llvm/cfrontend/build/gcc/

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 10:49:44 -0700 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > Jeff, > > Actually, that was my fault. I forgot to remove the non-existent > directories from the configure.ac file. That's done and committed > now, so the advice is still the same: update configure script :) > > Reid. OK, no problems building. I got some minor issues with the simple

On May 4, 2004, at 10:36 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: >> I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C >> compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C >> code, >> and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without >> syntactic loops). > > Yup, this is

Doesn't seem to get a lot of love since most of the commits in the last 3 years have been maintenance. I guess it doesn't take a whole lot of maintenance either, but... cc'ing Wesley since he seems to be the last guy to commit to it. Thoughts? -eric