similar to: [LLVMdev] Running functions built with the LLVM C API

(My apologies for the double e-mail, Eric; I neglected to reply to the list.) >> configure: error: Already configured in /Users/rob/Developer/External/llvm-trunk >> make[1]: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop. >> make: *** [cross-compile-build-tools] Error 1 > > You're going to need multiple configures and multiple build directories to do it that

Hello, I’ve spent the past day or so attempting to get LLVM’s libraries built as a Mac OS X-style universal binary, the first step of which is to get them built for each component architecture (i386, x86_64, ppc, and ppc64). The first two are straightforward as I am working on an x86_64 Mac (running Mac OS X 10.6, which corresponds to Darwin 10), but building ppc binaries has thus far eluded me.

>> The configure script’s output says, near the top: >> >> checking target architecture... x86_64 >> >> So it seems that the Makefile is preferring the configure script’s reckoning to the CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS variables at present. > > configure really doesn't know about it. It's still the target architecture. You'll just be adding more. > > Let

>> Daniel's comments are also good. > > …success! Looks like I spoke a bit too soon. Everything works as far as the fat binaries are concerned, except that -mmacosx-version-min is set to the host’s OS version, not that of the SDK, causing errors when it tries to link against 10.6’s versions of libraries instead of 10.5’s. This patch appears to solve that; it uses the OS version

Hello, A project of mine involves adding a new optimization pass, and it might be relatively convenient for me to contribute additions to the C API to wrap the process of adding an optimization pass. Is there any interest in such additions? Would they be welcomed? Rob -- Rob Rix, Unknown Quantity Monochrome Industries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

Hi Duncan, Thanks for the response! > that's because clang is doing something more complicated than you are: it is > producing a function that conforms to the platform ABI for passing parameters. > The platform ABI specifies in this case that the valued should be returned via > a special in-memory mechanism (thus the "sret" extra function parameter) rather > than in

I’m using the C API (with a few additions in a single cpp file) to write a compiler. In one part of my code, I want to build a function that returns a structure. The LLVM Assembly Language Reference Manual gives this as a possible return value: > ret { i32, i8 } { i32 4, i8 2 } Meanwhile, compiling this C function: > Range make_range(Index location, Index length) { > return (Range){

mingw, llvm 2.6 (buid with llvm-gcc) Example source code: http://npcontemplation.blogspot.com/2008/06/secret-of-llvm-c-bindings.html I change LLVMCreateJITCompiler(&engine, provider, &error); to LLVMCreateJITCompiler(&engine, provider, 3, &error); $ llvm-gcc `llvm-config --cflags` -c fac.c $ g++ `llvm-config --libs --cflags --ldflags core analysis executionengine jit

On Dec 21, 2009, at 3:39 PM, Rob Rix wrote: >> Anyhow, Rob, best bet is to just use -arch to build everything up. lipo knows what needs to happen. > > Unfortunately that doesn’t appear to be enough; using -arch in CFLAGS (and CXXFLAGS) and not using --build or --host builds for x86_64 no matter what you specify for the architecture (in my case, the documented i386 and ppc). >

On Nov 29, 2007, at 16:06, Jon Harrop wrote: > So I now have a working first-order language that uses conventional > boxing to handle polymorphism and with ints, floats and ('a -> 'a) > functions. Cool. > After a huge amount of detailed benchmarking in OCaml and F# I have > decided that it is very important to be able to unbox complex > numbers but no other

I need some advice on "forwarding" arguments to a callee. Suppose I have a function F that is called at the beginning of all other functions in the module. From F I need to access (read) the arguments passed to its immediate caller. Right now I do something like boxing all arguments in the caller inside a struct and passing a pointer to the struct to F, alongside an identifier

Nella citazione lunedì 22 agosto 2011 11:53:29, Duncan Sands ha scritto: > Hi Carlo, rather than declaring individual stack variables > int x; > int y; > int z; > and so on, which requires you to pass each one, or a pointer to each one, > to your function, declare one stack variable of struct type that holds > them all: > struct StackObjects { > int

Nella citazione giovedì 18 agosto 2011 09:11:36, Carlo Alberto Ferraris ha scritto: > I need some advice on "forwarding" arguments to a callee. Suppose I have > a function F that is called at the beginning of all other functions in > the module. From F I need to access (read) the arguments passed to its > immediate caller. Right now I do something like boxing all

So I now have a working first-order language that uses conventional boxing to handle polymorphism and with ints, floats and ('a -> 'a) functions. After a huge amount of detailed benchmarking in OCaml and F# I have decided that it is very important to be able to unbox complex numbers but no other compound types. As LLVM provides a vector type for power-of-two dimensionalities that

On the server with the dhcp script. apt install krb5-user Should be sufficient, then try again. Greetz, Louis > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Praveen Ghimire [mailto:PGhimire at sundata.com.au] > Verzonden: donderdag 4 juli 2019 8:39 > Aan: 'L.P.H. van Belle'; samba at lists.samba.org > Onderwerp: RE: [Samba] Reverse DNS > > Hi Louis, > >

Hi Carlo, > Nella citazione lunedì 22 agosto 2011 11:53:29, Duncan Sands ha scritto: >> Hi Carlo, rather than declaring individual stack variables >> int x; >> int y; >> int z; >> and so on, which requires you to pass each one, or a pointer to each one, >> to your function, declare one stack variable of struct type that holds >> them all: >>

This - is non-destructive (does not change z) - passes the renamed z onto further pipe legs - does not use \(x)... It works by boxing z, operating on the boxed version and then unboxing it. z <- data.frame(a = 1:3, b = letters[1:3]) z |> list(x = _) |> within(names(x)[2] <- "foo") |> _$x ## a foo ## 1 1 a ## 2 2 b ## 3 3 c On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at

Hi, Is there such a function (or a similar one) which is callable using the c-binding llvm? Many thanks, Georg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100511/d49c75d2/attachment.html>

Hi Guys, Thank you for your emails. Here is the info /etc/apparmor.d/local/usr.sbin.dhcp /etc/dhcp/ r, /etc/dhcp/** r, /etc/dhcpd{,6}.conf r, /etc/dhcpd{,6}_ldap.conf r, /usr/local/bin/dhcp-dyndns.sh ix, /bin/grep rix, /usr/sbin/samba rix, /usr/bin/gawk rix, /bin/hostname rix, /usr/bin/wbinfo rix, /usr/bin/heimtools rix, /usr/bin/logger rix, /usr/bin/kinit.heimdal rix, /bin/date rix, /dev/tty

Variadic templates themselves don't avoid the copy, but combined with perfect forwarding you should be doing well (see, for example, make_shared) From: Jordy Rose Sent: 8/21/2011 10:34 AM To: Carlo Alberto Ferraris Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Accessing arguments in a caller What I can think of: 1. Anonymous struct, to avoid a copy. 2. Use stdarg.h...dangerous but