similar to: [LLVMdev] Any objections to removing 'win32/...' subtree from LLVM?

No objection. I'm studying LLVM on Win32 using visual studio. CMake works well for it. On Oct 26, 7:44 am, Chandler Carruth <chandl... at google.com> wrote: > Daniel Dunbar tells me it's no longer in use, and poking around shows > that it is extremely out of sync with trunk source code. > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list

FYI, I'll plan on removing this subtree on Monday of next week if no one else chimes in requesting a reprieve... On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:59 PM, PyLLVM <pyllvm at gmail.com> wrote: > No objection. > I'm studying LLVM on Win32 using visual studio. > CMake works well for it. > > > On Oct 26, 7:44 am, Chandler Carruth <chandl... at google.com> wrote: >>

Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> writes: > FYI, I'll plan on removing this subtree on Monday of next week if no > one else chimes in requesting a reprieve... The Visual C++ project files are still there. Anyone objected by private e-mail? Can we know the reasons just in case we can enhance the cmake build on accordance? In the past, the only reason for not removing

On Nov 6, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> writes: > >> FYI, I'll plan on removing this subtree on Monday of next week if no >> one else chimes in requesting a reprieve... > > The Visual C++ project files are still there. > > Anyone objected by private e-mail? Can we know the reasons just in > case

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: >> I tried setting these to false, but the resulting executable (made >> with link.exe) crashed. I looked at the differences in the object >> file, but couldn't figure out what was causing it. I'm

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: >>> I tried setting these to false, but the resulting executable (made >>> with link.exe) crashed. I

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > - Please split the patch into at least four parts: > (1) Add WinCOFFStreamer, with a stub implementation. > (2) Add WinCOFFObjectWriter, with a stub implementation. > (3) Fill in WinCOFFStreamer. > (4) Fill in WinCOFFObjectWriter. Attached is patch number 4. - Michael Spencer

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: >> Daniel somehow replied to one of my previous commits on llvm-commits >> instead of this thread. >> >> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote:

Daniel somehow replied to one of my previous commits on llvm-commits instead of this thread. On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Two minor notes: > -- >> diff --git a/lib/Target/X86/X86AsmBackend.cpp b/lib/Target/X86/X86AsmBackend.cpp >> index 2cf65c1..02ac2be 100644 >> ---

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > Daniel somehow replied to one of my previous commits on llvm-commits > instead of this thread. > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: >> Hi Michael, >> >> Two minor notes: >> -- >>> diff --git

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Daniel somehow replied to one of my previous commits on llvm-commits >>> instead of this thread.

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: >  - Please split the patch into at least four parts: >    (1) Add WinCOFFStreamer, with a stub implementation. >    (2) Add WinCOFFObjectWriter, with a stub implementation. >    (3) Fill in WinCOFFStreamer. >    (4) Fill in WinCOFFObjectWriter. Here's the 1'st patch.

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > - Please split the patch into at least four parts: > (1) Add WinCOFFStreamer, with a stub implementation. > (2) Add WinCOFFObjectWriter, with a stub implementation. > (3) Fill in WinCOFFStreamer. > (4) Fill in WinCOFFObjectWriter. Here's the 2nd patch.

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > - Please split the patch into at least four parts: > (1) Add WinCOFFStreamer, with a stub implementation. > (2) Add WinCOFFObjectWriter, with a stub implementation. > (3) Fill in WinCOFFStreamer. > (4) Fill in WinCOFFObjectWriter. 3rd patch

Hi Michael, Looks great to me, with the caveat that I know nothing about COFF. A few comments: - The term symbol is already very overloaded, I would avoid adding a new 'class Symbol'. - I find it annoying to have more versions of write little endian 32-bit data, but I'm not sure what the right solution is. We can clean this up later, perhaps. - There are a couple of instances of:

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Overall patch looks good. I do have a few comments below. My main > comment is please try to make the style match that used in the > MCMachOStreamer more closely. I intend to refactor more functionality > into the base MCObjectStreamer class, and having them use consistent >

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Wesley Peck <peckw at wesleypeck.com> wrote: > Will this poking include converting the JIT to use the MC framework? That is the motivation for me poking at things, yes. > I've added an MC based asm parser, disassembler, and code emitter recently to the MBlaze backend and it would be nice to get JIT support automatically :) I agree, that would be

Will this poking include converting the JIT to use the MC framework? I've added an MC based asm parser, disassembler, and code emitter recently to the MBlaze backend and it would be nice to get JIT support automatically :) -- Wesley Peck On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:42 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > Hi, > > I am starting to poke at the LLVM JIT, which seems to be in need of some TLC. >

Dear R community, I would like to plot a partial hclust output, so I?am looking for a subtree function that would return an tree structure I can plot. I ran the test code of subtree following the instruction on?http://finzi.psych.upenn.edu/library/extracat/html/subtree.html However, an error message popped up: ====> library(extracat) Attaching package: ?extracat? The following object is masked

Hi, I am starting to poke at the LLVM JIT, which seems to be in need of some TLC. If you are a "sophisticated" JIT user and are using either internal APIs (either by integrating with LLVM, or by other C++ tricks), or are using obscure or poorly documented public APIs (e.g., why is runJITOnFunction exposed?) please make me aware of it! I reserve the right to break anything which