similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM / C--

Hello, I would want to know what are the main differences between LLVM and C--. We need a robust compiler ( or at least the most promising to work on it ) with these features : -A GLR parser (use a modified Elkhound as C/C++ front-end):   http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~smcpeak/elkhound/ -Complete the ARM back-end -To be able to compile a complete Cross Linux from scratch for arm with uclibc-nptl.

 Hello,  I am French Engineer in Informatics and I would want to build a start  up to  manufacture mobile phones ( OEM level ). I am currently in discussion with investors. We would want to use LLVM as our main compiler but we will need to complete it to have a "commercial grade" one. Here are our goals : -Use a modified Elkhound as C/C++ front-end :

On Wednesday 19 March 2008 21:27:18 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Argiris Kirtzidis wrote: > > I'd like to hear your opinions and ideas for a proposal to improve > > support for C++ parsing for LLVM's clang front end. > > Some meta feedback: C++ support in clang is a huge project, far and away > more than any mortal can get done in a summer. While it

I want to play around with the GLR support in the recent bison, so I simply fixed the skeleton. On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:31:25 -0700 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 21:46, Jeff Cohen wrote: > > I'm using bison 1.875. But it worked the last time, so I don't know why > > it doesn't work now. Deleting the __attribute__ clause fixes

On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 19:52, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I want to play around with the GLR support in the recent bison, so I > simply fixed the skeleton. What do you mean by "fixed the skeleton"? Hacked the output of bison so that it compiled? I suppose what we ought to do is have a bison post-processor that scans the bison output for this problem and corrects it. Could you do that?

>C--'s weakness is it's incompleteness (missing many major features), >instability/bugginess, poor performance (both time to compile and the >generated code), lack of high-level optimizations, lack of ABI >compatibility with the native tools, lack of C++ frontend support, and the >small size of its community. To quote Tony Hoare : "premature optimization is the

On 11/1/06, Guillaume FORTAINE <guillaume.fortaine at wanadoo.fr> wrote: > >C--'s weakness is it's incompleteness (missing many major features), > >instability/bugginess, poor performance (both time to compile and the > >generated code), lack of high-level optimizations, lack of ABI > >compatibility with the native tools, lack of C++ frontend support, and the

Hi all Is there an option in dovecot to remove the >From escaping in the body of mbox mails? Thanks -- Dean Earley AKA Dee (dean at earlsoft.co.uk) irc: irc://irc.blitzed.org/ web: http://personal.earlsoft.co.uk phone: +44 (0)780 8369596

Hi, I am looking to do some quantitative genetic analyses using animal models and was wondering if someone could suggest an appropriate package in R. It would help if it was similar to the ASReml genetic analyses software. Thanks, Deepa Senapathi Deepa Senapathi Centre for Agri-Environmental Research (CAER) School of Agriculture, Policy & Developement. University of Reading

Hello, I'm a French student in computing science and I'm interested in your llvm project. We plan to build a new OS design using the Mozart-Oz language ( http://hurd.gnufans.org/bin/view/Hurd/NextHurd ). Could we "easily" implement a Mozart front-end to llvm ? Do you think llvm could be a good alternative to gcc for our project ? http://www.mozart-oz.org

Hello, The Mozart-Oz isn't suitable for our project beacause of disappointing "raw" performances : http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=al http://www.gecode.org/benchmarks.html I have found a very interesting language : http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/alice/ Concurrency, logic verification I found this link : http://www.cminusminus.org with a

I'm linking a program (my ellsif driver) that basically brings in most of the LLVM stuff: bitcode reading, optimizations, linking, and target code generation. All of a sudden, I'm getting the following when I run: [~/elsa/ellsif] dev% ./ellsif -v test/ofmt.i test/sieve.i -time-actions -O5 <premain>: CommandLine Error: Argument 'machine-licm' defined more than once!

Misters, Let me introduce myself : Guillaume FORTAINE, Engineer in Computer Science. Me and my partners are currently working on a Virtualization Firmware. After an analysis of the various solutions (Citrix, VMware and Microsoft), it seemed natural to our eyes, to enable a true bare-metal hypervisor, to go as close as possible to the hardware, hence the BIOS. That's why we are currently

Hello all- First off I'm not a dev, just a small business owner trying to start up. I don't have a budget for much of anything & wind up doing most everything myself, which for the last year includes evaluating virtual infrastructure offerings. It's quite discouraging to see just how much doesn't "just work" for someone like me- unfortunately oVirt included (no

On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 21:46, Jeff Cohen wrote: > This isn't my day... > > gmake[2]: Entering directory `/usr/home/llvm/obj/utils/TableGen' > Bisoning FileParser.y > Flexing /usr/home/llvm/obj/../utils/TableGen/FileLexer.l > gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/home/llvm/obj/utils/TableGen' > gmake[2]: Entering directory `/usr/home/llvm/obj/utils/TableGen' >

Hello All- I regularly increase the size of volumes using "add-brick" followed by "rebalance VOLNAME fix-layout". I usually allow normal use of an expanded volume (i.e reading and writing files) to continue while "fix-layout" is taking place, and I have not experienced any apparent problems as a result. The documentation does not say that volumes cannot be used

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:27:26 -0700 Jeff Cohen <jeffc at jolt-lang.org> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:48:45 -0700 > Jeff Cohen <jeffc at jolt-lang.org> wrote: > > > When I ran configure after updating, I get various errors. First: > > > > % ../configure --enable-jit --with-llvmgccdir=/home/llvm/cfrontend/x86/llvm-gcc > > checking for a

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Argiris Kirtzidis wrote: > I'd like to hear your opinions and ideas for a proposal to improve > support for C++ parsing for LLVM's clang front end. Some meta feedback: C++ support in clang is a huge project, far and away more than any mortal can get done in a summer. While it would be possible to sketch out the parser itself in the summer (providing the

GAH! Why on bloody earth does the LLVM mailing list server not set the response address to the LLVM mailing list server so I actually respond to the server instead of the person above me, that is so different then the other 20+ mailing lists I am subscribed to and I could have sworn the LLVM mailing list was not broken like that before... My message is below: On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 4:29 PM,

Hi all, I'd like to hear your opinions and ideas for a proposal to improve support for C++ parsing for LLVM's clang front end. Goal: Improve clang's C++ support. The scope of the project will be limited to C++ parsing, not code generation (I think the timeframe of a GSoC project and the complexity of C++ doesn't allow full C++ support to be developed). C++ parsing support