similar to: [LLVMdev] Austin User's Group meeting cancelled

I'm taking Talin's idea and running with it with respect to the Austin area. If you're into LLVM and within easy-enough driving distance to make it worthwhile to get together every month or so in Austin, please post here. If there's enough interest, I'll set something up at a local restaurant or someplace like that.

12:00 PM at Bombay Bistro, 183 at Braker next to HEB.

I will tentatively schedule it for Friday, 12/4/2009. Unless the group gets significantly larger, we can meet again at Bombay Bistro.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm taking Talin's idea and running with it with respect to the Austin > area.  If you're into LLVM and within easy-enough driving distance to > make it worthwhile to get together every month or so in Austin, please > post here.  If there's enough interest, I'll set something

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > If the TargetData pass isn't registered in the global registry, > getPassInfo() returns null. > > Now when you add a TargetData pass, it winds up in ImmutablePasses. > Any search through ImmutablePasses assumes that getPassInfo() for > every member returns something other than null.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Nick Lewycky<nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > > > 2009/8/28 Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> >> >> This is by design, of course, (CreateDistinctItem does not return the >> same value given the same caller-visible global state) but I see no >> way to declare a function that: >> >> 1. Returns a

2009/8/28 Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> > Suppose I have some LLVM assembly like this: > > declare i8* @CreateDistinctItem() nounwind > > declare void @dumpBoolean(i1 %val) > > define i32 @main() > { > %var1 = call i8* CreateDistinctItem() > %var2 = call i8* CreateDistinctItem() > %isEqual = icmp eq i8* %val1, %val2 > call void

The Houston RoR group meeting is off for tonight (Aug. 8) due to some issues with the venue for the meeting that came up at the last minute. We are rescheduling for next Tuesday, the 15th. Sorry for the inconvenience and late notice. Keith Lancaster http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Houston-RoR/ -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On Oct 21, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> If the TargetData pass isn't registered in the global registry, >> getPassInfo() returns null. >> >> Now when you add a TargetData pass, it winds up in ImmutablePasses. >> Any search through ImmutablePasses

Suppose I have some LLVM assembly like this: declare i8* @CreateDistinctItem() nounwind declare void @dumpBoolean(i1 %val) define i32 @main() {  %var1 = call i8* CreateDistinctItem()  %var2 = call i8* CreateDistinctItem()  %isEqual = icmp eq i8* %val1, %val2  call void @dumpBoolean(i1 %isEqual)  ret i32 0 } So far so good.  But if I take out the "call @dumpBoolean", the optimizer

>> Anyway, my present plan of attack is to have a "-defaulttarget" option >> with "none", "host", or a target string.  If -defaulttarget is not >> specified, the behavior of "opt" will be the same as it is presently. >> The defaulttarget will be overridden by the Module's target data if it >> has some.  "none"

Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Nick Lewycky<nlewycky at google.com> wrote: >> >> 2009/8/28 Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> >>> This is by design, of course, (CreateDistinctItem does not return the >>> same value given the same caller-visible global state) but I see no >>> way to declare a function that:

I'm still planning to meet this Friday at Bombay Bistro (183 & Braker, next to HEB).

Hi, For those who are interested I will be presenting at the Austin Linux Users Group meeting tonight. Topic: What's holding Linux back? When will grandma be ready for Linux? More info: http://www.austinlug.org/ I'll be happy to answer Samba questions at or after the meeting. Cheers, John T.

The Austin Asterisk User Group is meeting next Monday. See aaug.bybent.com for more information on the location. Topic and date aren't correct on the page, but the location and time are. -- Chris Tooley 512-646-1507 ctooley@gnumber.com

Hi Jean-Daniel On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Jean-Daniel Dupas <devlists at shadowlab.org>wrote: > > Le 19 oct. 2009 à 15:05, Kenneth Uildriks a écrit : > FWIW, there is a LLVM bar camp planed in Paris the next month: > > http://barcamp.org/LLVM%20BarCamp%20Paris (French web page) > > > -- Jean-Daniel > Could you please tell me if it will be in French or

On 8 July 2011 00:07, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > You don't need function parameters to be stack roots.  You already > have a stack root for those values in the calling function, right? Allowing parameters themselves to be stack roots allows an object that the calling function itself no longer needs to be collected once the called function (and everyone

Le 19 oct. 2009 à 15:05, Kenneth Uildriks a écrit : > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > wrote: >> >> On Oct 18, 2009, at 7:54 PM, Talin wrote: >> >>> So I wasn't able to attend the developer meeting this year, even >>> though >>> I had signed up for it. This was a big disappointment to me,

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > My front-end is sync'd with the trunk now, and working well, but it > required some additional functions exposed in the C bindings.  I > hereby submit them for review and approval for inclusion in the trunk. > LLVMGetAttribute had a bug in it. Here's the revised version of the patch

Le 20 oct. 2009 à 10:27, Artur Pietrek a écrit : > Hi Jean-Daniel > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Jean-Daniel Dupas <devlists at shadowlab.org > > wrote: > > Le 19 oct. 2009 à 15:05, Kenneth Uildriks a écrit : > FWIW, there is a LLVM bar camp planed in Paris the next month: > > http://barcamp.org/LLVM%20BarCamp%20Paris (French web page) > > > --