similar to: [LLVMdev] Cleanup some warning on VS2005

Hi, Three new files added: lib\Analysis\ValueTracking.cpp lib\CodeGen\StackSlotColoring.cpp lib\CodeGen\LiveStackAnalysis.cpp Regards, Cédric -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: updVS2005prj.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1064 bytes Desc: not available URL:

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

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

> 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

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

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

_CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE is new for VS2005. Nothing I can do with it in VS2003. Morten Ofstad wrote: > Jeff Cohen wrote: > >> The project files need frequent updating. I cannot maintain VS2005 >> project files, so while they could be distributed with LLVM, they >> will become broken fast. Also, VS2003 and VS2005 project and >> solution files cannot coexist in

The project files need frequent updating. I cannot maintain VS2005 project files, so while they could be distributed with LLVM, they will become broken fast. Also, VS2003 and VS2005 project and solution files cannot coexist in the same directories, further complicating matters. Aaron Gray wrote: > Hi Morten, > > If you can make the VS2005 project files availiable on the net then I

David Vandevoorde a écrit : > On Aug 27, 2009, at 3:07 AM, Cédric Venet wrote: > > >> 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

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE is new for VS2005. Nothing I can do with it in > VS2003. It shouldn't hurt to define it though, even if VC2003 where it does nothing. Right? -Chris > Morten Ofstad wrote: > >> Jeff Cohen wrote: >> >>> The project files need frequent updating. I cannot maintain VS2005 >>>

I don't know. If that's all it was, why is there a special new property manager to set it? Morten will need to explain what to do in VS2003 to make VS2005 happy. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > >> The new property manager doesn't exist in VS2003 either. Don't know >> where to add it. > > > Isn't there a place to

The new property manager doesn't exist in VS2003 either. Don't know where to add it. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > >> _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE is new for VS2005. Nothing I can do with it >> in VS2003. > > > It shouldn't hurt to define it though, even if VC2003 where it does > nothing. Right? > > -Chris >

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > The new property manager doesn't exist in VS2003 either. Don't know where to > add it. Isn't there a place to add -D_CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE for the preprocessor? Isn't this all we are talking about, or am I missing something? -Chris >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: >> >>> _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE

Jeff Cohen wrote: > The project files need frequent updating. I cannot maintain VS2005 > project files, so while they could be distributed with LLVM, they will > become broken fast. Also, VS2003 and VS2005 project and solution files > cannot coexist in the same directories, further complicating matters. The VS2003 project files convert without problems -- you might want to add in

Hi, Just a small patch for user of tablegen.vim I added support for: - defm and multiclass - imbricatable multiline C style comment - FIXME/TODO highlight in comment - binary and hexadecimal number - code using [{ }] is no highlighted as special (perhaps not the best choice) If someone has comment or idea to enhance, I will be happy to hear it. Regards, -- Cédric Ps: Is there somewhere a

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:

Hi, what are the goals of VS2005 support for building LLVM? I'm syncing to the v3 branch and while the branch compiles perfectly with VS2008, there are a significant amount of compile errors and warnings with VS2005 SP1 (8.0.50727.867 with KB926601 SP1, to be precise). I also have the latest WSDK installed. A few months back there were only a few minor issues that I managed to clear up.

-------------- 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>

Hi Morten, If you can make the VS2005 project files availiable on the net then I can test them as I have VS2005 now, so then with Chris'es okay then they could be distributed with LLVM. Thanks, Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morten Ofstad" <morten at hue.no> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Thursday, January 26,

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