similar to: [LLVMdev] Why llvm-gcc? Another beginner's question.

Hendrik Boom wrote: > What is the reason for llvm-gcc? Will regular gcc work (except for the > releases that are broken, of course)? Does llvm in any way depend on > features of llvm-gcc instead of gcc? > llvm-gcc has a two-fold purpose. First, they are the front-end compilers for C/C++ for LLVM. In other words, they take C/C++ source code and translate it to LLVM assembly

So it turns out that -pre13 was quite buggy after all. Once I started running the list of tests that I described in my email, a bunch of those bugs came to heed. Now I think I've fixed them, and so have released -pre14. I have also formally decided to call the final release 3.00 when it's ready. Between code base rewrite + EXTLINUX + libcom32 + simple menu, there is plenty of

Hi - I've just been testing out the latest CVS HEAD (as of about 10:00a EDT today). I'm getting some weird errors. Calls from one sip phone to another have OK audio in one direction and highly scrambled audio in the other direction. The console shows this error repeated ad nauseum during each call: Jul 18 16:08:03 ERROR[22941]: utils.c:509 tvfix: warning negative timestamp

I just got a new Windows laptop (i7, 10th generation CPU), installed 'Windows Subsystem for Linux 2' and then installed Ubuntu 20.04 and used 'apt-get install' to install packages that the R build seems to require. In particular, I am using gcc version 9.3.0. The build went without a hitch but the tests showed that deparse(1e-16) produced "1.00000000000000e-16" instead

Since RadRails 0.6 is out (see http://www.radrails.org/ ), I have made a "celebratory illustrated tutorial" on how to use the Eclipse update function to do the upgrade from within Eclipse (I found the process a tad confusing): http://wiki.awebfactory.com.ar/awebfactory/published/UpdateRadRails saludos, Victor Kane awebfactory.com.ar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

I got some weird mail back, claiming that my e-mail was blocked, w/o indicating what server was blocked, after the mail appeared in the mailing list. Is this some BS shakedown? I use postfix on a DSL line forwarding to earthlink, this is hardly something that should be rare in the BSD world... the mail appeared to come from a web mail server and the first link has the following lovely text:

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Devang Patel wrote: > On Jul 31, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Vikram Adve wrote: >> Does llvmgcc4 convert the high-level AST to LLVM (like llvmgcc3x) or does >> it go from GIMPL to LLVM? If the latter, would it be possible to allow >> some TreeSSA optimizations before emitting LLVM? > llvmgcc4 intercepts high-level GCC trees to GIMPLE tree transformation

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Does LLVM have passes that do translations between GCC RTL and LLVM >> SSA, RTL -> SSA and SSA -> RTL? > > Nope.  There has been some talk about doing a Clang -> RTL or LLVM IR -> RTL backend, to

On Jul 31, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Vikram Adve wrote: > Does llvmgcc4 convert the high-level AST to LLVM (like llvmgcc3x) > or does it go from GIMPL to LLVM? If the latter, would it be > possible to allow some TreeSSA optimizations before emitting LLVM? llvmgcc4 intercepts high-level GCC trees to GIMPLE tree transformation routines to get trees that are suitable for LLVM byte code.

Does llvmgcc4 convert the high-level AST to LLVM (like llvmgcc3x) or does it go from GIMPL to LLVM? If the latter, would it be possible to allow some TreeSSA optimizations before emitting LLVM? --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ On Jul 31, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > llvmgcc4 emits LLVM byte code before executing GCC optimizations, > so one

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 04:27, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hopefully this is feasible, as I said I didn't work on > it yet. It sounds doable, but I'm not sure why would you want to convert the gimple into LLVM bitcode, if you are already saving LLVM bitcode in the file. Wouldn't you be just duplicating code? Diego.

Dear All, I am trying to understand the process followed for converting GIMPLE IR to LLVM IR in LLVM-GCC/DragonEgg - more importantly conversion of OpenMP extended GIMPLE IR to LLVM IR. It would be great if anybody points me to some documentation before I my-self delve into the understanding of related source code. -- Cheers -mahesha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment

On 01/01/2013 02:45 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > >> >> In our compiler we use a modified version LLVM Polly, which is very >> sensitive to >> proper code generation. Among the number of limitations, the loop region >> (enclosed by phi node on induction variable and branch) is required to >> be free >> of additional memory-dependent

Hi Diego, >> Hopefully this is feasible, as I said I didn't work on >> it yet. > > It sounds doable, but I'm not sure why would you want to convert the > gimple into LLVM bitcode, if you are already saving LLVM bitcode in > the file. Wouldn't you be just duplicating code? here I was thinking of the possibility that some files have been compiled with -flto but

Hi Dmitry, > > In our compiler we use a modified version LLVM Polly, which is very sensitive to > proper code generation. Among the number of limitations, the loop region > (enclosed by phi node on induction variable and branch) is required to be free > of additional memory-dependent branches. In other words, there must be no > conditional "br" instructions below phi

Okay, now that I've got NUT up and running with the newhidups driver, I can give it a quick shakedown. Most of the values look good, but are few are off. Here's what I get: elrond@foxstar:~$ upsc foxstarups@localhost battery.charge: 100 battery.charge.low: 10 battery.charge.warning: 50 battery.date: 3150/08/01 battery.mfr.date: 2005/03/22 battery.runtime: 1935 battery.runtime.low: 120

Hello Everyone! New to the forums, so hopefully I'm not a nuisance. I just wanted to know where to go (since I heard there were about 5 different intermediate forms for llvm) to find the highest level intermediate form of llvm. I want to be able to get as much information from a front-end as possible. Mainly I need to find out dependencies and control flows, amongst a few other things.

On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 10:26, Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalibera at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/17/20 9:34 PM, Bill Dunlap wrote: > > I just got a new Windows laptop (i7, 10th generation CPU), installed > > 'Windows Subsystem for Linux 2' and then installed Ubuntu 20.04 and > > used 'apt-get install' to install packages that the R build seems > > to

Dear all, In our compiler we use a modified version LLVM Polly, which is very sensitive to proper code generation. Among the number of limitations, the loop region (enclosed by phi node on induction variable and branch) is required to be free of additional memory-dependent branches. In other words, there must be no conditional "br" instructions below phi nodes. The problem we are facing

Just finished the compiling llvm without llvm-gcc from svn. Tried it out. Got g++ -o hlvm.o -c -I/farhome/hendrik/dv/llvm/llvm/include -D_DEBUG -D_GNU_SOURCE -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -g -Woverloaded-virtual hlvm.cpp In file included from /farhome/hendrik/dv/llvm/llvm/include/llvm/DerivedTypes.h: 21, from hlvm.cpp:1: /farhome/hendrik/dv/llvm/llvm/include/llvm/Type.h:19:31: error: