similar to: [LLVMdev] New compiler-rt project

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Howard Hinnant <hhinnant at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 2014, at 4:23 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 14, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Howard Hinnant <hhinnant at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> Author: hhinnant >>> Date: Fri Feb 14 15:09:01 2014 >>> New Revision: 201432 >>>

On 5/11/10 4:43 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Hi All, > > LLVM now includes a C++ standard library, written by Howard Hinnant. You can read about it here: > http://blog.llvm.org/2010/05/new-libc-c-standard-library.html > > Or get the code here: > svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk libcxx > > If you have questions or comments, please direct them to one of

On Tuesday 11 May 2010 15:43:21 Chris Lattner wrote: > Hi All, > > LLVM now includes a C++ standard library, written by Howard Hinnant. You > can read about it here: > http://blog.llvm.org/2010/05/new-libc-c-standard-library.html > > Or get the code here: > svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk libcxx > > If you have questions or comments, please

On May 11, 2010, at 7:26 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 11 May 2010 15:43:21 Chris Lattner wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> LLVM now includes a C++ standard library, written by Howard Hinnant. You >> can read about it here: >> http://blog.llvm.org/2010/05/new-libc-c-standard-library.html >> >> Or get the code here: >> svn co

First, some logistical information. The conference will be held at the San Jose Hilton. I've updated the webpage with the exact location. During registration (coming very soon!) you will have the opportunity to book a hotel room directly through that process (and get the reduced rate). Now, I'm pleased to announce the tentative agenda for the 2010 LLVM Developers' Meeting: LLDB -

On 1 February 2014 00:44, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > * One of the interesting things about compiler-rt is the static library to > dynamic library migration (e.g. libgcc.a vs libgcc_s.so, or on Darwin > libclang_*.a vs libSystem.dylib). If the shared library ships > independently from the compiler, then the compiler may need a .a file that > can ship with it

On Nov 16, 2009, at 10:49 AMPST, Howard Hinnant wrote: > On Nov 16, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > >> >> On Nov 14, 2009, at 3:16 PMPST, Howard Hinnant wrote: >> >>> In many places there is code that looks like: >>> >>> MBBI = next(MBBI); >>> >>> In C++0X there is a std::next that is likely to be in scope when

On Feb 14, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Howard Hinnant <hhinnant at apple.com> wrote: > Author: hhinnant > Date: Fri Feb 14 15:09:01 2014 > New Revision: 201432 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=201432&view=rev > Log: Remove myself as owner of libc++ > > Modified: > llvm/trunk/CODE_OWNERS.TXT > > Modified: llvm/trunk/CODE_OWNERS.TXT > URL:

Hi All, LLVM now includes a C++ standard library, written by Howard Hinnant. You can read about it here: http://blog.llvm.org/2010/05/new-libc-c-standard-library.html Or get the code here: svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk libcxx If you have questions or comments, please direct them to one of the clang mailing lists. Thanks! -Chris

On Tuesday 11 May 2010 19:07:50 Howard Hinnant wrote: > > This looks cool, but I can't help wondering about the motivation. > > libstdc++ has a ton of useful functionality (debug mode, profile mode, > > etc.). Does libc++ plan to reproduce that? > > debug mode yes. It isn't there yet. And I would like to limit it to being > ABI compatible with release

On Nov 16, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Nov 14, 2009, at 3:16 PMPST, Howard Hinnant wrote: > >> In many places there is code that looks like: >> >> MBBI = next(MBBI); >> >> In C++0X there is a std::next that is likely to be in scope when these >> calls are made. And due to ADL the above call becomes ambiguous: >>

On 12/19/11 7:19 PM, Howard Hinnant wrote: > On Dec 19, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Shea Levy wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> Is it possible, if using libc++ and compiler-rt, to have a clang with no >> runtime dependencies on any GCC components on Linux? If not, will this >> ever be possible? > We are working on a new libc++abi: http://libcxxabi.llvm.org/ which carries

On 22 October 2014 19:24, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > I do compiler_rt + libc++abi + libc++ + clang (with a custom ToolChain) testing > of libc++ on bare-metal ARM.... so it is possible. Perhaps you mean to say that > it's not possible to test libunwind on arm-linux when using compiler_rt? Yeah, it's hard and clumsy, not impossible. Basically,

Hi @ll, compiler-rt implements (for example) the MSVC (really Windows) specific routines compiler-rt/lib/builtins/i386/chkstk.S and compiler-rt/lib/builtins/x86_64/chkstk.S as __chkstk_ms() See <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms648426.aspx> Is there any special reason why compiler-rt doesn't implement other MSVC specific functions (alias builtins or "compiler

On 31 Jan 2014, at 08:12, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > - There is the core runtime library. Historically this was called 'compiler-rt' informally, but perhaps better called 'libclang_rt', which provides the core necessary runtime library facilities to compile C or C++ applications. It's analogous to libgcc but without some of the unwinding code

On Nov 14, 2009, at 3:16 PMPST, Howard Hinnant wrote: > In many places there is code that looks like: > > MBBI = next(MBBI); > > In C++0X there is a std::next that is likely to be in scope when these > calls are made. And due to ADL the above call becomes ambiguous: > llvm::next or std::next? > > I recommend: > > MBBI = llvm::next(MBBI); > > -Howard

"Craig Topper" <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > None of the "si" division routines will be used by x86. That was my expectation too. > They exist for targets that don't support the operations natively. > X86 supports them natively so will never use the library functions. So they SHOULD not be built (or at least not shipped) with the builtins library

On Jul 30, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Stephen Lin wrote: >> Right. What's the point of all the effort devoted to MSVC++ ABI >> compatibility when Clang doesn't need it for being a top-notch C++ >> compiler on Windows? > > I brought up a similar point a little bit earlier, too.... > > It seems like the only necessary condition for being a first-class >

Howard Hinnant wrote: > On Nov 16, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > >> "next" is a popular name; if it breaks llvm, I'd expect this standards change to break a lot of existing code. Do you really want to do that? >> > > I'm happy to open an LWG issue for you on this subject. Here are directions on submitting an issue: > >

> -  std::string string(isl_printer_get_str(p)); > +  char *char_str = isl_printer_get_str(p); > +  std::string string(char_str); > +  free(char_str); This got me wondering: If this were compiled with exceptions it wouldn't be safe (std::string's ctor could throw & then the free wouldn't be called), but I know LLVM doesn't use exceptions in its codebase. Are