similar to: [LLVMdev] Small patch for silencing delete warning

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Cédric Venet <cedric.venet at laposte.net> wrote: > Le 06/03/2010 11:43, José Fonseca a écrit : >> >> Attached are two patches with MSVC build enchancements. >> >> They are quite trivial, but were necessary to correctly link LLVM >> libraries with Mesa3D on Windows. >> >> Jose >> > > Are you volontary

Thanks cedric, I will look into the ways the debug information could be used. However, it seems like i would have to write a piece of code that would successively reduce the conditional predicate in terms of the local and global variables (of the code). I plan to do it like this. Since i am using a runonBasicblock pass, the context information between two basic blocks cannot be shared, since

Whoops, mailing list headers still broken, sending to the list this time: On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:35 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Cédric Venet <cedric.venet at laposte.net> wrote: >> So adding an option for adding this flag would be great but not changing the >> default. (The flag is interesting because it can

David Vandevoorde a écrit : > > I don't think those are _good_ reasons though: If one doesn't want a C+ > + function to be inlined, one shouldn't define it inline. > > You must not have written a lot of C++ template then. You don't have the choice in this case, just check your STL header. > > FWIW, I've been involved in a couple of attempts by

Nuno Lopes a écrit : > Hi, > > I have two questions about optimizations performed by llvm. > > Consider these simple functions: > int x(int b) { return b?4:6; } > int y() { return x(0); } > > int x2() { return 5; } > int y2() { return x2(); } > > the optimized bitcode (with clang + opt -std-compiler-opts) is: > define i32 @y(...) nounwind { > entry:

Anton Korobeynikov a écrit : > Hi, Oscar > >> at all, it would be great if you reflect your changes on the file list >> inside the corresponding CMakeLists.txt when you add, remove or rename > a >> .cpp file. > Isn't is possible for cmake just to glob everything in the corresponding > directory? > Hi, It is possible, but it has some drawback. Mainly, it

OvermindDL1 a écrit : > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> / * snip */ >>>>

Le 06/03/2010 11:43, José Fonseca a écrit : > Attached are two patches with MSVC build enchancements. > > They are quite trivial, but were necessary to correctly link LLVM > libraries with Mesa3D on Windows. > > Jose > > Are you volontary trying to break everyone build (just to build your own project), or have you no idea of the effect of this change:

Applied: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20080616/063951.html Thanks Cedric! On Jun 20, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Cédric Venet wrote: > Hi, > > Last time patch contained a new file, but it seems this is not > supported so > I attached it here: > Common.vsprops => llvm/win32/ > This allow to set properties (like preprocessor definition) to all the

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Cédric Venet <cedric.venet at laposte.net> wrote: > should be fixed with r60590 (work for me) That seems to have fixed a large amount of those errors (nicely simple fix). I went ahead and termserved into my dev box (I will not be able to get to it for another day or so) and told svn to update, and cmake to make into a new directory, and build it, but it

Hello Folks, I have a couple of questions - one about a basic UPS choice I am to make for a small UK office environment and the second about NUT Windows support. For the UPS, I have 2 or 3 servers, a phone system and a switch i.e. a basic : - Dell R410 1U (2x IEC) - Dell SC1425 1U (1x IEC) - Mitel 3300 CXi phone system (1x IEC) - Netgear GS748T switch (1x IEC) It would be good to also be able

Cedric is right, Our target, PIC16, is 8-bit and promotion to 32-bit is really bad for us... Now what exactly is going to happen once these attributes are added, depends on the target. For example, in our case, there will be no promotion on the callee side, but the caller will decide if it wants to promote or not... What will happen in general is that front-end (clang and llvm-gcc) will do the

Martinez, Javier E a écrit : > Hello, > > > > The Clang Visual Studio solution was modified yesterday. A reference to > the file clang.vdproj was added but the file does not appear to be in > the repository. Was this file missed during commit? The file is expected > to be in llvm_trunk\clang\ > The file should be in the clang repository, not the llvm one and be

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Cédric Venet <cedric.venet at laposte.net> wrote: > OvermindDL1 a écrit : >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM, OvermindDL1

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Isaac Dupree <ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote: > On 03/06/10 18:03, OvermindDL1 wrote: >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Isaac Dupree >> <ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org>  wrote: >>> >>> On 03/06/10 17:37, OvermindDL1 wrote: >>>> >>>> Whoops, mailing list headers still broken,

-------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Mikael Lyngvig" <mikael at lyngvig.org> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] An alternate implementation of exceptions Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 09:53:29 +0200 (CEST) Size: 6388 URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090906/ca20be9e/attachment.eml>

Rafael Espindola a écrit : > My proposal is to make the extension as explicit as possible. If the > callee is extending an char to an int, the generated llvm code should > return an i32 and the caller can assume that the extension has been done. > > Are you saying that the decision to do the extension in the callee happens > after we have generated llvm? That is, an optimization

Kenneth Boyd a écrit : > Cédric Venet wrote: >> you never seen assert(0 && "Not yet implemented"); ? >> You may want to compile a program like this :) >> > As I see it, under the proposed extension a compile-time false constant > would error "if the code commits to executing it". > > Heuristically, something like > > void

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Cédric Venet <cedric.venet at laposte.net> wrote: >> should be fixed with r60590 (work for me) > > That seems to have fixed a large amount of those errors (nicely simple > fix). I went ahead and termserved into my dev box (I will not be able > to get to

> Technically, yes, but we can reword future standards to have the > latitude to give compilation errors for conditions that can be proved > to be false, then the implementation is conforming. We could always > have a flag to control the behavior if people want/need it, though, I > can't hardly see why they'd want it to compile if they assert > something that