similar to: [LLVMdev] ARM TargetLowering broken?

everyone-- I'm trying to build LLVM-GCC as a cross-compiler for a new target. I've successfully patched binutils, the FSF GCC, LLVM and Clang to build for this new target-- they work fine, but the LLVM-gcc build is failing for me. All my llvm.org sources are tracking the Subversion trunk, but my problem is probably not related to any ongoing churn there. I'm doing something

On Apr 30, 2008, at 11:19 PM, james woodyatt wrote: >> $TMPFILE:66: Error: internal_relocation (type: OFFSET_IMM) not >> fixed up You need to run the compile with -save-temps and then look at the .s file. If you like it, it is an assembler bug. If you don't like it, it is a bug in the compiler. If you don't know if you like it, as your assembler vendor (binutils)

everyone-- I notice that Llvm.llvm_handle_to_type is actually defined to create a type handle from a type, rather than vice versa as its name would imply. Should I send a patch to change the name of the function to reflect its type better, or should I just lump it? — j h woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org> http://jhw.vox.com/

everyone-- File this under Advocacy. See this thread <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2010-February/018425.html> for more information, but the short summary is that they're deprecating their old "compile to GCC" backend in favor of David Terei's new LLVM backend. They're still planning for their C-- backend to be the primary backend for native

On Mar 1, 2010, at 09:56, james woodyatt wrote: > On Mar 1, 2010, at 04:43, Duncan Sands wrote: >> >> Where exactly? I don't see it in the online version. > > See <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#t_function> and look at the second example: > > float (i16 signext, i32 *) * > > Pointer to a function that takes an i16 that should be sign extended

everyone-- I don't know whether this is a bug or not. I'm trying to bootstrap an embedded application and using LLVM tools to generate the assembly code, which I then assemble and link with traditional tools. The bootstrap loader, of course, runs in a very limited environment, and I have to roll my own memcpy() function for it, i.e. there is no kernel, nothing at all, this stuff

everyone-- The OCaml bindings need help again. diff -r a8c05e69647e import/llvm.org/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml --- a/import/llvm.org/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml Fri Dec 25 17:35:09 2009 -0800 +++ b/import/llvm.org/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml Sun Dec 27 11:38:15 2009 -0800 @@ -42,13 +42,18 @@ | External | Available_externally | Link_once + | Link_once_odr | Weak +

On Feb 18, 2010, at 12:51, Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > > I'm in the process of finishing up the ocaml llvm bindings, and I had > some last minute questions before we code freeze: > > 1. What version of ocaml is everyone using, and how old of an ocaml > version do you need to support? Still using OCaml 3.11.1, but will but upgrading to OCaml 3.11.2 around the same time as the

On Mar 1, 2010, at 04:43, Duncan Sands wrote: > [I wrote:] >> >> Nevertheless, the LLVM Language Reference document suggests, in the examples for the Function Types section, that parameter attributes are part of function types. > > Where exactly? I don't see it in the online version. See <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#t_function> and look at the second

everyone-- Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see how to apply parameter attributes to function return types in either the C-language or OCaml bindings. Can anybody help clue me in? Thanks. — j h woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org> http://jhw.vox.com/

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:20 PM, james woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org> wrote: > On Mar 1, 2010, at 09:56, james woodyatt wrote: >> On Mar 1, 2010, at 04:43, Duncan Sands wrote: >>> >>> Where exactly?  I don't see it in the online version. >> >> See <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#t_function> and look at the second example: >> >>  

james woodyatt wrote: > everyone-- > > I don't know whether this is a bug or not. I assume you're using llvm-gcc? Does it still turn memcpy into llvm.memcpy if you pass llvm-gcc -ffreestanding? If so, that's certainly a bug. Either way, you should be using -ffreestanding! Nick > I'm trying to bootstrap an embedded application and using LLVM tools > to

On Dec 27, 2009, at 11:41 AM, james woodyatt wrote: > everyone-- > > The OCaml bindings need help again. Please attach this as a .patch file and I'd be happy to apply it for you, -Chris > > diff -r a8c05e69647e import/llvm.org/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml > --- a/import/llvm.org/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml Fri Dec 25 17:35:09 2009 -0800 > +++

On Mar 1, 2010, at 20:28, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:20 PM, james woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org> wrote: >> I'm sorry to pester about this, but I was really hoping somebody could straighten me out about this. The Language Reference really does seem to be ambiguous about this, and I'm willing to compose a patch to fix it, but I need to know what the

to me the name implies that it creates a handle to the type given, i guess if you look at it in context of the ocaml conversion functions some people may think otherwise. On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:49 PM, james woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org> wrote: > everyone-- > > I notice that Llvm.llvm_handle_to_type is actually defined to create a type > handle from a type, rather than vice

I've pretty much finished exposing all I wanted to llvm-c and the ocaml bindings for the soon to be released 2.7. Does anyone need any other functions exposed before the code freeze on the 7th?

I'm in the process of finishing up the ocaml llvm bindings, and I had some last minute questions before we code freeze: 1. What version of ocaml is everyone using, and how old of an ocaml version do you need to support? 2. Would it be alright if I renamed some functions? Module providers are being removed for 2.7. I can keep the old functions around, but I'd prefer to keep the API clean.

On Wednesday 24 February 2010 13:26:33 Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday 24 February 2010 03:58:03 Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > >> I think LLVM OCaml bindings do not support JIT too much. > > > > Can you elaborate on this? > > I meant the OCaml bindings let OCaml call existing

everyone-- Is it my imagination, or is there no way in LLVM 2.8 (or current trunk) to use the facilities defined in <llvm-c/Core.h> to get or set the optional return parameter attribute on a function value? All the functions in the "Operations on parameters" parameters section actually seem to work only on the function arguments and not the return parameter. Is this intentional?

On Feb 19, 2010, at 11:33 AM, james woodyatt wrote: > everyone-- > > File this under Advocacy. > > See this thread <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2010-February/018425.html> for more information, but the short summary is that they're deprecating their old "compile to GCC" backend in favor of David Terei's new LLVM backend.