similar to: [LLVMdev] VC++ Build

On Mon, 2 May 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > Yes, that will work. I'll make the change. While you're at it, please remove this line, which is dead: if (V2->isNullValue()) return 0; Thanks, -Chris > Chris Lattner wrote: > >> On Mon, 2 May 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: >> >>> The recently added code: >>> static Constant *Div(const ConstantClass *V1,

On Mon, 2 May 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > The recently added code: > static Constant *Div(const ConstantClass *V1, const ConstantClass *V2) { > if (V2->isExactlyValue(0.0)) return ConstantClass::get(*Ty, INFINITY); > if (V2->isExactlyValue(-0.0)) return ConstantClass::get(*Ty, -INFINITY); > if (V2->isNullValue()) return 0; > BuiltinType R =

Yes, that will work. I'll make the change. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 2 May 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > >> The recently added code: >> static Constant *Div(const ConstantClass *V1, const ConstantClass *V2) { >> if (V2->isExactlyValue(0.0)) return ConstantClass::get(*Ty, INFINITY); >> if (V2->isExactlyValue(-0.0)) return ConstantClass::get(*Ty,

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Jeff Cohen wrote: > The problem with building the frontend on Windows is that gcc cannot be > bootstrapped using Window's native compiler -- i.e. VC++ -- unlike every > other platform. It can be built on Windows using gcc, of course, but > even then only if the entire GNU environment is present. Yeah, annoying. Unfortunately we're not up to fixing GCC :)

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

I checked right now that it compiles also with #include <iostream> Jeff, can you test it with plain VC? --- Paolo Invernizzi On Sep 24, 2004, at 4:52 PM, Reid Spencer wrote: > I'll wait for the research. We should try, as much as possible, to make > it work with just what the compiler provides and without third party > packages. > > Thanks, > > reid. > >

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > If copyright is assigned to the FSF, would they change the license to GPL? We would work something out. That is a huge 'if'. > Also, would they be allergic to the VC++ suppport that currently exists? > After all, if they're not careful, going down this route may result in a gcc > that can be bootstrapped with VC++ :) I

OK. I strongly support that sentiment. Paolo, could you send me your procedure for building under Windows? I haven't tried to build anything but System/Win32 so far. On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:52:23 -0700 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > I'll wait for the research. We should try, as much as possible, to make > it work with just what the compiler provides and without

The LLVM 1.4 Release is now out! Get it here: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/releases/ or read about it here: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/releases/1.4/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#whatsnew This release features a huge assortment of improvements in functionality, generated code quality, and compile times. Thanks to everyone who has helped make this release the best one yet. In addition to the changes

I'll wait for the research. We should try, as much as possible, to make it work with just what the compiler provides and without third party packages. Thanks, reid. On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 07:46, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I added the include of cstudio and it fails with plain VC7.1; the file > does not exist. > > Add it for now. If it is impossible to build with VC7.1 and without

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > That's a good point. I think there are some issues with doing this (e.g. EH doesn't work, so the very few places we use it would have to be modified), but other than that I fully support the idea. -Chris > Evan Jones wrote: > >> On Thu, 2005-21-04 at 19:43 -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: >> >>> In case it wasn't

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > Sorry, but it is not even close to working (its template and STL support > > is horribly lacking). The Visual Studio "Whidbey" compiler, now in beta, > > will handle it though with only a reasonable amount of tweaking to the > > LLVM sources. I have no idea about when Microsoft intends to release it > > though,

I added the include of cstudio and it fails with plain VC7.1; the file does not exist. Add it for now. If it is impossible to build with VC7.1 and without STLPort, then there really isn't a choice. I have to research the issue myself to see if it's possible to avoid using STLPort. On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:42:51 -0700 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > Someone needs

Hi Jeff, I'm just reviewing some old mail on my "to do" list. I was wondering if you managed to get ltdl.c to compile cleanly with VC++ or if you want me to look at these warnings. Reid. On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 09:08, Jeff Cohen wrote: > Well, then why does win32/DynamicLibrary.cpp exist, not to mention it's > *nix relatives? You have even been updating them, even though

Actually, <algorithm> is not correct. This remove is in stdio.h and io.h in VC7.1. It removes a file, not elements from a collection. The proper solution is to not use remove at all and use Path::destroy_file(). On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:09:37 -0700 Jeff Cohen <jeffc at jolt-lang.org> wrote: > <algorithm> works too. > > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:09:21 -0500 > Alkis

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Aaron Gray wrote: >>> Right, presumably Wndows does not set the TT. Should Windows or MSVC++ >>> have one ? If so how do I go about it. Maybe Jeff should be involved ? >> >> It should/will. Currently there is no C/C++ front-end that works on native >> windows, but that doesn't really matter. In the future, we want to key off

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Jeff Cohen wrote: > But apparently it's not a problem. 64-bit portability warnings were already > turned on in the project files you created, and precisely zero warnings are > generated. LLVM is already 64-bit clean as far as VC++ is concerned. At > least the part that gets built with VC++. I haven't tried the VC project files, but out of curiousity,

I have just committed a change to Value.h that changes the Value class from using a "struct" declaration to a "class" declaration. I'm not sure why VC7.1 would generate different symbols for class vs. struct. I'm pretty certain that's a violation of the ABI. In any event, we should be consistent. The Value class is declared "class Value" in numerous places

On Sat, 6 May 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: >>> Looks like Jeff Cohen already fixed this in CVS. Please update and give >>> it another shot. >> >> Is this fixing the issue, or just papering over it? Why are we trying to >> load an archive member without a path set? > We're not. It's just a sentry value. Then why does it matter whether the path is

Someone needs to adjudicate on whether I add the #include of <cstdio> or not. I can't test this so, Paolo/Henrik/Jeff, please let me know if I need to add it. Thanks, Reid. On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 07:08, Jeff Cohen wrote: > But I compiled that under vc7.1 as it was! > > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:19:22 +0200 > Paolo Invernizzi <arathorn at fastwebnet.it> wrote: > >