similar to: [LLVMdev] Preferring to use GCC instead of LLVM

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

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

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

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

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

Dear R helpers,   I understand that this is absolutely unprofessional on my part and this group doesn't entertain such things. I have been associted with this group since last 1 and half years and have been immensely benefited by the noble service rendred by many R helpers.   So I take this opportunity to thank all of you and wish you all   "MERRY CHRISTMAS".   I sincerely apologize

I'm trying to get LLVM1.9 working on my Ubuntu 6.10 system. The LLVM version in the repositories is 1.7 and I've never managed to get it successfully working because whoever packaged it thought it would be fun to rename everything. This means I can't use it to build 1.9 and I've therefore decided to try bootstrapping a 1.9 build. Yes, I've looked at the docs where it said

http://snakeratpig.blogspot.com/2008/02/alternative-compiler-suites.html Executive summary: LLVM-GCC was consistently faster and its output consistently faster than plain old GCC when compiling and using Ruby 1.9. Both compilers failed spectacularly on the full regression suite, but GCC lasted longer and did more tests before exploding. If I could find a comprehensive Erlang testing suite,

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?

Thanks for your replies. This is indeed a helpful mailing list. I made some more researches about the licensing issue and this is what I discovered: - from FSF it seems that packaging together a GPL application and a commercial one it is a corner case of licensing. Here is what they say: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

Hi Michael, thanks for trying out LLVM! "The bad news comes with the make test-all results. Less than two minutes into the comprehensive test suite the LLVM-GCC version of Ruby 1.9 dies with the following message: "Illegal instruction (core dumped)". Later it tells me the test failed with "error 132". This is, as you can see, not a very useful message since it's not

On Tue, 2007-16-01 at 02:50 +0000, Reid Spencer wrote: > > The build instructions provided tell me to build llvm-gcc first from > > the source. > > The source for that tells me to build llvm first from the source. I'm > > not sure where to go from this point. > You should build llvm first, then llvm-gcc. When I build LLVM first, however, I get told that it

I'm losing my sanity, so I thought I'd try and generate an LLVM target for the Glasgow Haskell Compiler (GHC). In talking to some of the people in the GHC mailing list some issues have come up that I can't find a ready answer to. (Others came up that I could, so I don't feel quite as stupid or helpless as I could.) 1. Is there any way to hint that a global pointer variable

Hi Michael, On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 10:24 +0800, Michael T. Richter wrote: > I'm trying to get LLVM1.9 working on my Ubuntu 6.10 system. The LLVM > version in the repositories is 1.7 and I've never managed to get it > successfully working because whoever packaged it thought it would be > fun to rename everything. This means I can't use it to build 1.9 and > I've

On May 13, 2008, at 10:04 PM, Razvan Aciu wrote: > Thanks for your replies. This is indeed a helpful mailing list. I > made some > more researches about the licensing issue and this is what I > discovered: > For now, I think for a commercial developer who wants to create a > complete > compiler toolchain using llvm, trying to package its compiler with > GCC is a

I am trying to configure the FXO port on a Sipura-3000 for use with Asterisk. When I connect to the Sipura to dial out on the PSTN line connected to the Sipura's FXO port, it gives me the dialtone of the PSTN line and then I can hear the DTMF for the number I dialled beforehand. It does work but the customer perceives this delayed second DTMF feedback as "unprofessional" and the

"Razvan Aciu" <admin at kam.ro> writes: [snip] > The problem is with the gcc and binutils licence. This is GPL and [snip] I agree with Owen Anderson on this one (altough IANAL, etc). [snip] > In that respect, if someone can adapt the MASM templates to produce > NASM directives (it is the only thing that needs to be changed), these > updates will be more than

Hi Michael, On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 13:13 +0800, Michael T. Richter wrote: > On Tue, 2007-16-01 at 02:50 +0000, Reid Spencer wrote: > > > The build instructions provided tell me to build llvm-gcc first from > > > the source. > > > The source for that tells me to build llvm first from the source. I'm > > > not sure where to go from this point. >

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:44:05PM +0200, Andreas Neustifter wrote: > Well it does look not too good the text is getting to small in this > case, what do you think of this 128x128 version? It looks like an sprite coming from a Megaman game :). My humble opinion is that while the dragon looks nice when large, when small it just feels childish and unprofessional. My 2 cents. -- Felipe.

A fairly serious question: how much can we (as users) donate to get the Google ads off the Wiki? I guess this does not give so much revenue, and it is really distracting. So, if we can match the annual income of Google Ads on the Wiki, I think I (and others) are willing to compensate this with donations. I have seen some potential Dutch users getting turned away seeing the main CentOS site