similar to: [LLVMdev] Using LLVM on an embedded device

Hi Evan, Sorry for the delayed reply. We've compiled llvm on Linux with only the x86 target, which produced an lli executable that's about 5.5MB. The LLVMX86CodeGen.o alone is 1.7MB. We've configured with --disable-assertions --enable-optimized --enable-targets=x86 --disable-debug-runtime --enable-bindings=none --disable-ltdl-install --disable-shared --enable-static Are there any

Hi All, I've been reading through the archives, and am still reading through now, but I figured I would ask this anyways. My task is to support domain users and groups on an embedded network device using Samba 3.0.14a (upgrading would be difficult, due to the qualification testing our QA department would require). I'm trying to determine the minimum set of required libraries and

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi Sanitizer Runtime Developers, >> >> We recently ran into a problem building clang because some of the >> definitions in sanitizer_common conflicted with system definitions and later >>

Hi all, I am interested in using the OPUS codec for real-time application on an (preferable low-profile) platform. In order to choose the optimal processor (memory size, speed,...) I have the following questions: - We have compiled OPUS on a PC with Linux OS and on a dual-core Cortex A9 with Linux Kernel. Can OPUS run on a processor with no specific OS, or are there

> On Feb 17, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com <mailto:ganna at apple.com>> wrote: > Unfortunately, we do rely on the Autotools to build for darwin. > > The lack of proper testing is very unfortunate. In the future, we will either drop the dependency on

Hello everyone, I tried integrating opus middleware on an STM32L4 microcontroller based project. First thing I noticed is the considerable amount of memory allocated by the opus_encoder_create function (nearly 40 kbytes if I recall). After modifying my project's memory setting (mainly heap size adjustments), I could bypass some aspects of this problems. What I'm noticing now is the time

Hi Sanitizer Runtime Developers, We recently ran into a problem building clang because some of the definitions in sanitizer_common conflicted with system definitions and later another system header was trying to use the system definition: .../usr/include/libkern/OSAtomicDeprecated.h:756:17: error: reference to 'memory_order_relaxed' is ambiguous __theAmount, memory_order_relaxed) +

> On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:03 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > > On 09/03/15 21:52, Anna Zaks wrote: >> >> +Easily, some of the code snippets end up being copied dozens of >> +times, which leads to worse maintainability, understandability and logical >> +design. > Should be better now. >> >> The project description stresses

Unfortunately, we do rely on the Autotools to build for darwin. The lack of proper testing is very unfortunate. In the future, we will either drop the dependency on Makefile/autoconf build or add the support for sanitizer testing. Anna. > On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > +1 (in case you still need mine) > > On Thu, Feb 12,

Hi Everybody, my rails 1.2.5 application runs in a linux embedded environment with serious memory constraints. I would need to know how small a memory footprint I can hope to get. I run ligthtpd with only one dispatch and I did already remove actionmailer and actionwebservice which I do not need. Currently top shows a memory footprint of 720K for lighttpd and 25M for the dispatch.fcgi process. The

Anna Zaks, David Blaikie and I have been at Grace Hopper Conference for the last couple days talking to many people about LLVM and how to get involved in the project. Its been discussed many times before at LLVM Developer Meetings and recently on the mailing list about tagging bugs with the “beginner” keyword and that keyword was recently added to the LLVM Bugzilla. However, there are very few

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 2:14 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > > On 10/03/15 19:13, Anna Zaks wrote: >> >>> On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:03 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch <mailto:vvasilev at cern.ch>> wrote: >>> >>> On 09/03/15 21:52, Anna Zaks wrote: >>>> >>>> +Easily, some of the code

On 05/01/2012 11:21 PM, dag at cray.com wrote: > Justin Holewinski<justin.holewinski at gmail.com> writes: > >> For something like PTX, runtime calls take care of the call semantics so >> it is either up to the user or the frontend to set up the runtime calls >> correctly. We don't need to completely solve this problem. Yet. :) >> >>

If you look at low cost (~$10 to $20 at quantities) fix-point DSPs (TI C5416 for example), they don't have a lot of on-chip RAM. 5416 has 128k, which is already a lot. Of cause you can use external RAM, but this not only will increase cost and board space, but will also degrade performance a lot. Many of the speed-enhancing tricks only work with on-chip memory. Once you go off chip, you lost a

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren

> On Oct 13, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > Stupid question, but when I was working on LTO last Summer the primary culprit for excessive memory use was due to us not being smart when linking the IR together (Espindola would know more details). Do we still have that problem? For starters, how does the memory usage of just llvm-link compare to the

-----Original Message----- From: Jean-Marc Valin [mailto:jean-marc.valin@usherbrooke.ca] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:17 PM To: Michael Shatz Cc: speex-dev@xiph.org Subject: Re: [Speex-dev] Blackfin inline assembler and VisualDSP++ toolchain Michael Shatz a ?crit : >>> Actually, you're the first I know using the VisualDSP++ toolchain >>> :-) >> >> I guess

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 What is the expected footprint of a tool using the LLVM JIT? I have created a simple project that uses the LLVM C++ API to JIT calls to XPCOM method signature... it works well, but the component DLL is very large (Linux x86-74, 5.8MB optimized and stripped). Is this normal? Am I linking to "too much" or not using the correct link flags?

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chandler, > > I don't quite get why you think sharing is not buying us anything... > It reduces the memory footprint of the source modules (there is sharing > among the source modules) and the number of MDNodes created for the > destination module (we do not need to re-create the MDNodes

On Nov 12, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chandler, > > I don't quite get why you think sharing is not buying us anything... > It reduces the memory footprint of the source modules (there is sharing among the source modules) and the number of