similar to: [LLVMdev] Warning for users of the CMake build on MSVC

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 30000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Warning for users of the CMake build on MSVC"

2010 Mar 06
4
[LLVMdev] [PATCH]: MSVC build enhancements
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
2010 Mar 06
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH]: MSVC build enhancements
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 trying to break everyone build (just to build your own project), or have you no idea of the effect of this change:
2010 Mar 06
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH]: MSVC build enhancements
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
2010 Mar 06
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH]: MSVC build enhancements
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Isaac Dupree <ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote: > On 03/06/10 18:03, OvermindDL1 wrote: >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Isaac Dupree >> <ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org>  wrote: >>> >>> On 03/06/10 17:37, OvermindDL1 wrote: >>>> >>>> Whoops, mailing list headers still broken,
2008 Oct 26
0
[LLVMdev] CMake builds clang.
Anton Korobeynikov a écrit : > Hi, Oscar > >> at all, it would be great if you reflect your changes on the file list >> inside the corresponding CMakeLists.txt when you add, remove or rename > a >> .cpp file. > Isn't is possible for cmake just to glob everything in the corresponding > directory? > Hi, It is possible, but it has some drawback. Mainly, it
2010 Mar 06
6
[LLVMdev] [PATCH]: MSVC build enhancements
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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-Allow-to-build-against-static-MSVC-runtime.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 2055 bytes Desc: not available URL:
2008 Oct 26
4
[LLVMdev] CMake builds clang.
Hi, Oscar > at all, it would be great if you reflect your changes on the file list > inside the corresponding CMakeLists.txt when you add, remove or rename a > .cpp file. Isn't is possible for cmake just to glob everything in the corresponding directory? -- WBR, Anton Korobeynikov
2008 Dec 05
2
[LLVMdev] Build errors on trunk for about a week now.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Cédric Venet <cedric.venet at laposte.net> wrote: > should be fixed with r60590 (work for me) That seems to have fixed a large amount of those errors (nicely simple fix). I went ahead and termserved into my dev box (I will not be able to get to it for another day or so) and told svn to update, and cmake to make into a new directory, and build it, but it
2008 Dec 05
2
[LLVMdev] Build errors on trunk for about a week now.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Cédric Venet <cedric.venet at laposte.net> wrote: > OvermindDL1 a écrit : >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM, OvermindDL1
2007 Dec 20
0
[LLVMdev] Conditional Predicate Extraction
Thanks cedric, I will look into the ways the debug information could be used. However, it seems like i would have to write a piece of code that would successively reduce the conditional predicate in terms of the local and global variables (of the code). I plan to do it like this. Since i am using a runonBasicblock pass, the context information between two basic blocks cannot be shared, since
2008 Dec 05
0
[LLVMdev] Build errors on trunk for about a week now.
OvermindDL1 a écrit : > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> / * snip */ >>>>
2008 Dec 05
0
[LLVMdev] Build errors on trunk for about a week now.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Cédric Venet <cedric.venet at laposte.net> wrote: >> should be fixed with r60590 (work for me) > > That seems to have fixed a large amount of those errors (nicely simple > fix). I went ahead and termserved into my dev box (I will not be able > to get to
2009 Aug 27
3
[LLVMdev] inlining hint
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
2008 Sep 04
0
[LLVMdev] missed optimizations
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:
2009 Sep 06
1
[LLVMdev] [Fwd: Re: An alternate implementation of exceptions]
-------------- 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>
2008 Nov 10
1
[LLVMdev] MSVC Targets in CMake
Hi Any reason why the CMake build doesn't include more target backends under MSVC? (Currently only x86). I just tried turning on all the backends and everything seems to build OK. I don't know if they all run correctly. If there isn't a good reason, attached is the trivial patch to include all targets. scott -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was
2008 Nov 07
0
[LLVMdev] Missing file: clang.vdproj
Martinez, Javier E a écrit : > Hello, > > > > The Clang Visual Studio solution was modified yesterday. A reference to > the file clang.vdproj was added but the file does not appear to be in > the repository. Was this file missed during commit? The file is expected > to be in llvm_trunk\clang\ > The file should be in the clang repository, not the llvm one and be
2008 Dec 05
0
[LLVMdev] Build errors on trunk for about a week now.
OvermindDL1 a écrit : > Been trying to build the trunk to test some things for about a week > now using VS8 (VS2k5). Tons of Warnings (like things first being > declared struct, being redefined class and so forth, those need to be > fixed, but are otherwise not harmful), and a *lot* of errors. Being > trunk I figured just the normal trunk-type issues, but it has been > going on
2012 May 18
0
[LLVMdev] Build script for llvm/cmake/msvc
Hi everyone, I'm using this script to build llvm on windows, I thougt it might be useful for others too. Just rename the extension to .cmd The steps to build on windows: 1. Svn checkout 2. Cmake 3. Run this script in the build folder Regards, Bogdan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:
2008 Dec 05
2
[LLVMdev] Build errors on trunk for about a week now.
Been trying to build the trunk to test some things for about a week now using VS8 (VS2k5). Tons of Warnings (like things first being declared struct, being redefined class and so forth, those need to be fixed, but are otherwise not harmful), and a *lot* of errors. Being trunk I figured just the normal trunk-type issues, but it has been going on for a while now, so figured it would be good to