similar to: [LLVMdev] libLLVMpic16passes ?

Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> writes: >> But you put me on the right track. The problem is that the class is >> returned on the stack. Correction: The class is returned on the FP stack: >> 0x6e08b5b5 <_ZN3Foo6GetFooEv+17>: fldl -0x8(%ebp) >> 0x6e08b5b8 <_ZN3Foo6GetFooEv+20>: leave >> 0x6e08b5b9 <_ZN3Foo6GetFooEv+21>:

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Stellard" <tom at stellard.net> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, "Óscar Fuentes" <ofv at wanadoo.es> > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:55:43 AM > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4 Branch Freeze > > On Fri, Dec

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >> While compiling some sources, translating from my compiler's IR to LLVM >> using the C++ API requires 2.5 seconds. If the resulting LLVM module is >> dumped as LLVM assembler, the file is 240,000 lines long. Generating >> LLVM

On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >> Also, now msvc support multiple target. So it's better to set it as >> ${LLVM_ALL_TARGETS} >> It's can working, why not set it to:. > > I think most LLVM users on Windows are interested on X86 only. This > saves a lot of time on the build process and creates smaller >

Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes: > A good measure of how fast a set of Makefile are is to run the build > with all targets up-to-date. Both builds takes a few seconds (3 or so) > on my Linux quad core box. Whatever improvement can be achieved on this > seems pretty insignifant. Oh, it's significant. When I build the Cray compiler with only non-LLVM stuff changed,

----- Original Message ---- > From: Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> > To: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > Cc: Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es>; LLVM Developers Mailing List ><llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 4:39:57 PM > Subject: Re: Circular Deps from CMake build using makefile > > Samuel Crow <samuraileumas

Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes: > BTW, -fpcc-struct-return solves the case that motivated this thread. -fpcc-struct-return is an ABI change, hence it requires "compiling the world". Not acceptable. I'll be interested on hearing ideas about how to determine how a function returns a small struct, without knowing the internals of the struct. -- Oscar

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >> Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >>>> While compiling some sources, translating from my compiler's IR to LLVM

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:57:58AM -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tom Stellard" <tom at stellard.net> > > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > > Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, "Óscar Fuentes" <ofv at wanadoo.es> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:55:43 AM

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> writes: > >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >>> While compiling some sources, translating from my compiler's IR to LLVM >>> using the C++ API requires 2.5 seconds. If the resulting LLVM

Did you specify "--program-prefix=llvm-" on your configure line? That's what tells the llvm-gcc build to use the llvm-* names for the executables. -Jim On Dec 21, 2010, at 7:27 PM, akramul azim wrote: > Thanks a lot both of you. Using --enable-bindings=none, I could build and install LLVM 2.8 and gcc-4.2-2.8 source. However, in the bin directory, I get c++.exe, cpp.exe,

greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) writes: > Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes: > >> A good measure of how fast a set of Makefile are is to run the build >> with all targets up-to-date. Both builds takes a few seconds (3 or so) >> on my Linux quad core box. Whatever improvement can be achieved on this >> seems pretty insignifant. > > Oh,

Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes: > Okay, we can get rid of recursive make. However, as pointed out > elsewhere, removing recursive make will not make a difference on the > LLVM build. What David Greene says probably is related to difference > sizes among his compiler and LLVM. Ok, whatever. I'm done arguing experiences. -Dave

Thanks a lot. It worked !!! Akramul --- On Wed, 22/12/10, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: From: Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLVM installation in Windows To: "akramul azim" <bijoy123_8 at yahoo.com> Cc: "Óscar Fuentes" <ofv at wanadoo.es>, "Anton Korobeynikov" <anton at korobeynikov.info>,

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >> I think most LLVM users on Windows are interested on X86 only. This >> saves a lot of time on the build process and creates smaller >> executables. Anyways, it they want all targets, it is simply a matter of >> passing

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > > Apart from that, the most correct place for submitting patches is either > the llvm-commits mailing list or the bug database. > > We don't accept patches through the bug database. Patches should be sent to llvm-commits for review. -- Sean Silva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

2011/1/5 Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es>: > Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> writes: > >> Yeah that's the two different ones I mean. Everything MS (intrinsics, >> language features etc...) is purely version-bound, so I don't even get >> why CMake insists on checking every known function prototype of for >> example "recv"

Take a look at llvm-gcc. Look for HandleAggregateShadowArgument. Evan On Mar 26, 2008, at 10:31 AM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes: > >> BTW, -fpcc-struct-return solves the case that motivated this thread. > > -fpcc-struct-return is an ABI change, hence it requires "compiling the > world". Not acceptable. > > I'll

Whoops, phone rang and I forgot to cc to the list before I typed the message. ----- Forwarded Message ---- > From: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > To: Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> > Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 3:38:21 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] include/Config/config.h discrepancies between CMake and >autofoo builds > > > >

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Stellard" <tom at stellard.net> > To: "Óscar Fuentes" <ofv at wanadoo.es> > Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 10:24:59 AM > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4 Branch Freeze > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 02:45:51PM +0100, Óscar Fuentes wrote: >