similar to: [LLVMdev] For contributors using Thunderbird to submit patches

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > Please submit your patches as attachments; these fail to apply. How odd. I was able to apply the patch I sent you using just "patch -p0 < 2a33a0870af02af3d1b3bd767b36637f434615a2.diff" after downloading the patch I sent from the list. I did attach it using the "inline"

Hi all, The attachment supersedes the previous patch. It incorporates some feedback from Anton and takes the next step of merging the largely duplicated calling convention logic in X86ISelLowering. LowerCCCArguments, LowerX86_64CCCArguments and LowerFastCCArguments are merged and inlined directly into LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS. I moved LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS to the location where

Hello Mark, On Sun, 2016-12-18 at 11:56 -0500, mark wrote: > This is odd. Just recently, at home, even though I have it set to display > messages as plain text, I'm suddenly seeing pics attached to spam inline, as > though I had it set to display html. > > Can't find anything to make it stop - anyone have a clue? You are probably being confronted with content

On Mar 4, 2008, at 22:52, Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > Thanks Gordon. This patch should make the changes you requested. Please submit your patches as attachments; these fail to apply. — Gordon

On 2008-04-28, at 21:19, Lane Schwartz wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com > > wrote: > >>> If so, then a Collector plugin would need to have info about every >>> supported backend lays out the runtime stack? >> >> Yes. This information is actually available in a target-independent >>

Thanks Gordon. This patch should make the changes you requested.

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > > If so, then a Collector plugin would need to have info about every > > supported backend lays out the runtime stack? > > Yes. This information is actually available in a target-independent > fashion with LLVM, so the Collector interface is target-independent. A > backend

On Jul 26, 2008, at 12:14, Simon Ask Ulsnes wrote: > 2008/7/26 Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at me.com>: >> I'm not sure the purpose of doing so—llvm::Collector (poorly named; >> I'm open to suggestions) exists only in the compiler, not at >> runtime in the compiled program. You should need access to it at >> runtime no more than you might need

2008/7/26 Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at me.com>: > I'm not sure the purpose of doing so—llvm::Collector (poorly named; > I'm open to suggestions) exists only in the compiler, not at runtime > in the compiled program. You should need access to it at runtime no > more than you might need access to an instance of llvm::TargetMachine. Maybe I don't understand the

On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:47 AM, Nicolas Geoffray <nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the review Gordon. > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it wants to insert safe points.

Thanks for the review Gordon. On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com>wrote: > On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it > wants to insert safe points. I'm not sure who maintains the GC code today > in LLVM (I'd be happy to take ownership, if

Thank you so much for your help! I now have a much clearer idea of how to proceed. :-) This just keeps getting more interesting. - Simon 2008/7/26 Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at me.com>: > On Jul 26, 2008, at 12:14, Simon Ask Ulsnes wrote: > > 2008/7/26 Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at me.com>: > > I'm not sure the purpose of doing so—llvm::Collector

I've gone through Code Reviews with Phabriactor[1], Arcanist Quick Start[2] and Arcanist User Guide arc diff[3]. But I'm unable to setup reviewers my editor pops up and there is a "Reviewers:" line and but I'm unable email addresses directly. It seems it wants reviewers passed on the command line or some how in .arcconfig. But I haven't been able to find any

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > As for the compiler plugin interface, I suggest you ignore it > initially and use the provided shadow-stack option for the time being. > The shadow stack generates significantly suboptimal code, but will let > you avoid writing some platform-specific code. Instead, simply copy > the

Pending positive confirmation in http://llvm.org/PR2886, I'd recommend that r57974 and r57976 be pulled into the 2.4 release branch and configure regenerated there. Begin forwarded message: > From: Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> > Date: October 22, 2008 08:40:40 EDT > To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: [llvm-commits] [llvm] r57974 -

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > On 2008-04-28, at 21:19, Lane Schwartz wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com > > > wrote: > > > >>> If so, then a Collector plugin would need to have info about every > >>> supported backend

On Apr 28, 2008, at 14:28, Lane Schwartz wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Gordon Henriksen > <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > >> As for the compiler plugin interface, I suggest you ignore it >> initially and use the provided shadow-stack option for the time >> being. The shadow stack generates significantly suboptimal code, >> but will

--- On Thu, 1/3/08, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > > On Jan 2, 2008, at 05:57, Kamal R. Prasad wrote: > > > (im new to LLVM , so pl excuse if this is a naive q). > > Welcome! > thanks > > Can someone provide info on what runtime optimizations > are done in > > LLVM? > > You can use any of LLVM's optimizing

2008/7/24 Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at me.com>: >> OK, so for instance if I wanted to be able to use the GC from a C >> frontend (presumably by using llvm_gc_allocate?), do the C functions >> need this attribute as well? > > Yes. I forgot I still needed an answer to my original question. :-P So, I have to implement llvm_gc_initialize, llvm_gc_allocate, and

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at me.com> wrote: > In practice, so long as frame pointers are not elided, a handful of lines of > assembly per platform should get you a stack walker. If frame pointers are > elided, however, you're looking at parsing DWARF to find out where it was > saved, which is probably too expensive for the job. Unless