similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM as a DLL

Jon Harrop wrote: > So LLVM has relatively poor support for Windows, no direct > support for DLL generation and the exact opposite of your > performance requirements. I see. This news is disappointing to me. > I appreciate that you have customer demands but those > demands are very unusual (and, frankly, absurd!) but you > must try to meet them regardless. Very unusual?

Michael T. Richter wrote: > Apparently the APIs in the LLVM docs missed your > attention. They're sneaky that way because, you know, > they just form the bulk of available documentation. I began my original message saying that I was providing "constructive criticism". That means I want to HELP if I can. Your sarcastic attitude is unprofessional. > The

I wrote: > The Solution: Make LLVM usable as a DLL or SLL in Windoze, > capable of generating a finished ready-to-execute .EXE or > .DLL file, without requiring that MinGW or Cygwin be > installed first. Michael T. Richter replied: > You will be welcomed with open arms by the LLVM community > when you write this. I look forward to your announcement > with bated breath.

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 16:30 +1000, kr512 wrote: > Michael T. Richter wrote: > > Apparently the APIs in the LLVM docs missed your > > attention. They're sneaky that way because, you know, > > they just form the bulk of available documentation. > I began my original message saying that I was providing > "constructive criticism". That means I want to

Jon Harrop wrote: > Can you explain why you would like to generate DLLs on the > customer's computer rather than using LLVM as a JIT > compiler? Customers/clients unhappy with the inefficiency, extra CPU and RAM usage, and performance penalty of JIT. They require a faster, more efficient solution. The solution is to fully compile programs to native code at the time of

On Tuesday 13 May 2008 06:49:34 kr512 wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > > Can you explain why you would like to generate DLLs on the > > customer's computer rather than using LLVM as a JIT > > compiler? > > Customers/clients unhappy with the inefficiency, extra CPU > and RAM usage, and performance penalty of JIT. They require > a faster, more efficient solution.

Chris Lattner wrote: > If you'd prefer to use GCC, go for it. No one is forcing > you to use LLVM. No, we would prefer to use LLVM, but a missing part in LLVM makes it difficult. It would be wonderful if this missing part could be supplied. > You are seriously ignorant of what LLVM is all about. > Please go inform yourself. Alright, I read some more on llvm.org and it

On May 13, 2008, at 1:30 AM, kr512 wrote: > > Nevertheless, LLVM is not provided as a ready-to-use DLL, > unfortunately. This is exactly why I asked if you had downloaded and compiled it. If you had, you might have noticed that it does produce a set of ready-to- use shared libraries. I'm sorry that it did not build for you under Visual Studio, but patches are welcome. In the

Hi there LLVM is a great idea, congratulations. Do you mind if I give you a little bit of constructive criticism from the point of view of a developer who would like to use LLVM as a back-end? I will write this email from the point of view of MS Windows, but the same applies to MacOS and Linux. LLVM is difficult/awkward to use in a real-world environment/situation. To solve this problem,

Owen Anderson wrote: > There's nothing particularly stopping you from having your > installation package include copies of gas and ld, I disagree. gas and ld are not available on Windoze, except via MinGW. Yes I can make or tell my customers to install MinGW, but if MinGW is installed, then I don't need LLVM. (More about this further ahead) > You're welcome to think

Earlier this year I was lucky enough to have the chance to speak with a very successful businessman at the top of his niche, and I asked him, "Clearly you have a formula for success, what is it?" He told me his secret. He said that every month they pull a name out of a bucket, and that person must then prepare a 20 minute presentation explaining why one of their COMPETITOR'S

me22.ca wrote: > You said that if I have to install GCC, you might as well > just use it for everything. That statement very clearly > doesn't apply anymore, since it's binutils that's the > dependency. Or if you still stand by it, it means that > you consider GCC to also be "incomplete". How do I get the necessary binutils on Windoze? Install MinGW or

On 01/13/11 04:29 AM, Krzysztof ?elechowski wrote: > Dnia ?roda, 12 stycznia 2011 o 09:26:30 Alan Coopersmith napisa?(a): > >> On 01/11/11 11:19 AM, Krzysztof ?elechowski wrote: >>> The manual page for *xedit* does not say how to switch syntax colouring off and the display for *HTML* is awful. The font used for /code/ is smaller than the font used for /text/ , to the point

> > > LLVM's design decision is one where everything has to explicitly care > about implicit early exits to get correct answers (and not to harp too > much, but "not everything does", years later). If they don't, they will > get wrong answers. > > So, ironically, while looking at this, i noticed it turns out LLVM's PRE in GVN is another place that

Oh another thing, consider this question that some people will be asking: Why not use GCC to do what LLVM does, and skip the hassle of using LLVM entirely? ESPECIALLY considering that LLVM cannot be used without GCC. Even if you are using LLVM as a back-end only, for compiling LLVM bytecode only, GCC is still required to convert the "llc" output assembly .S file into a

I actually find Samba a very kewl server app so the subject isn't coming from someone that has a preference for Netware over samba. My issue is actually two-fold, one being the record locking problems in Samba and the other being the slowness of dos apps in samba. I'm not going to post any log messages here as I don't feel that for this post they're really very relevant.

On May 10, 2008, at 7:55 PM, kr512 wrote: >> You are seriously ignorant of what LLVM is all about. >> Please go inform yourself. > > Alright, I read some more on llvm.org and it confirmed what > I was saying: > http://www.llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#tutorial > > See at the end where it says: > ----------- > 6.Compile the program to native assembly using

Hello all, I am writing test cases which are dedicated to be executed by llvm-lit. Most of my test cases have the same logic but different types. For example: // RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only func (int a) { a = 3; } // RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only func (char a) { a = 3; } // RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only func (unsigned a) { a = 3; } Now I put them in three different test cases but it

This is to announce the availability of SRP (Secure Remote Password) support for OpenSSH. A tarball is available on Tripod: http://members.tripod.com/professor_tom/archives/ http://members.tripod.com/professor_tom/archives/openssh-2.5.2p2-srp5.tar.gz (Note: Tripod requires you to LEFT click on links to download files.) To install, unpack, configure --with-srp, and make install, then create an

I hope this question is sufficiently different from the other requests for book recommendations that it's not repetitious. If not, I apologize in advance. I'm curious what standard reference books working statisticians, or biostatisticians, have within easy reach of their desk. I'm a computer systems administrator, and have a two-foot bookshelf directory under my monitor that contains