similar to: [LLVMdev] C Backend

On Nov 19, 2010, at 11:03 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi David, > >> I like Chris' proposal to do the C backend using the existing >> target-independent backend framework. I think it would be a fun project >> so I will take up the mantle. I don't know if I can devote any >> work-time hours to this so it might all be on my own time. But it's >>

Hi David, > I like Chris' proposal to do the C backend using the existing > target-independent backend framework. I think it would be a fun project > so I will take up the mantle. I don't know if I can devote any > work-time hours to this so it might all be on my own time. But it's > certainly in my interest to get a better C backend. this sounds like a great

Hi All, I was trying to templatize some JSP page I would like to dynamically generates but it looks like puppet doesn''t like it. Common JSP tags are <% ... %> so I guess it''s getting confused between regular tags and jsp''s one. This is an example of the trace it is givin me : /etc/puppet/modules/xxx/templates/webapps/xxx/yyy/Mantle.jsp:1:in `result'':

David Greene <dag at cray.com> writes: > Back during the LLVM developer's meeting, I talked with some of you > about a proposal to "validate" llvm. Now that 2.4 is almost out the > door, it seems a good time to start that discussion. I applaud your initiative. Discussing this issue is badly needed. From my point of view, LLVM still has an academical/exploratory

Well. A priori. I'm a dedicated legacy OS person. I cut my teeth on command line DOS and then WIN 3.xx (these days that means WFWG 3.11). I drew the line at WIN9x. Hate that beast with a true passion, but because it is the 800 pound gorilla, I have to find some way to accomodate it in the future. So, here is the rub. Linux is a real PITA. Capital PITA. Unbelievably techie and that is bad.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Christian K?nig > <christian.koenig at amd.com> wrote: >> Am 22.07.2014 16:27, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst: >> >>> op 22-07-14 16:24, Christian K?nig schreef: >>>>> >>>>> No, you really shouldn't be doing much in the

The skinny is that I''m attempting to add "Discussions" as resources under different resources ("Groups", "Projects", for example) and I''ve simply hit a roadblock (or two). Discussions are an association between the "discussable" (Group, Project, etc.) and a "Topic" so: class Discussion < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :topic

Hi Justin, Firstly I really appreciate you taking the mantle and pushing this forward! Like Justin B I'll be bowing out after this. I thought it important because I don't believe you'll build consensus in this thread. I think the best that can be hoped for is opposition to give up fighting; advantages are to be had on both sides by different types of user and we've seen that many

Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> writes: >> There's a big reason to keep it. It's a godsend when trying to bugpoint >> something where no working llc is available. I've used it quite a lot >> during AVX development, for example. It's useful for developing any >> new target. > > an alternative is to make the interpreter more powerful and

Le 04/11/20 à 17:40, David Greene a écrit : > Sorry about the late reply. > > Lorenzo Casalino <lorenzo.casalino93 at gmail.com> writes: > >>>>> - Should not impact compile time excessively (what is "excessive?") >>>> Probably, such estimation should be performed on >>> Did something get cut off here? >> Uops. Yep, I removed a

I have learned a lot from this list. I would like to thank the developers and contributors who devote so much of their time to this project. Does anyone know if any methods have been developed for handling data from complex sample surveys that include sample weights, clusters, strata, and so on? I know that SUDAAN, Stata have some abilities. Does anything exist in R/S? Paul E. Green

I have been asked to assume the role of Architect for a large project here at HP and I have accepted. While this is an important step forward for my career, it is a step backward for Shorewall in as much as the time that I will be able to devote to Shorewall in the foreseeable future will be be very limited. So while I will attempt to keep on top of problems, Shorewall 2.0 will have to be put

On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 15:04 -0700, Warren Young wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:12 PM, John R Pierce <pierce at hogranch.com> wrote: > > > > On 2/9/2015 11:06 AM, Always Learning wrote: > >> The third item was a 16.1 MB PDF of 1,344 pages. A quick scan of the PDF > >> shows every page appears to be readable. 11 pages devoted to BASH. > >>

Hi, a couple of weeks ago I discussed with Peter how to improve LLVM's support for heterogeneous computing. One weakness we (and others) have seen is the absence of multi-module support in LLVM. Peter came up with a nice idea how to improve here. I would like to put this idea up for discussion. ## The problem ## LLVM-IR modules can currently only contain code for a single target

Back in August, several of us participated in a discussion about getting a more robust memory dependence analysis framework into LLVM. Wojtek Matyjewicz has done some work on this and he attached a patch to an e-mail at the time that built against an older version of LLVM. Wojtek, what's the status of this patch? Does it build against HEAD? Do you plan to check it in any time soon?

On 10/29/2015 07:40 AM, Bill Seurer wrote: > On 10/28/15 23:47, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote: > > This long running bot failed on a unused variable warning. Given that > > several other bots cover the warnings, any chance we could get this one > > configured to not fail the build on warnings? Doing so would make it > > more likely to actually get to the

Ok, no one has said it yet so I will. http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/bezos_expeditions_invests_in_37signals.php?102#comments How is this going to affect Rails? Or is it? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

> On Jul 27, 2016, at 11:38 AM, James Molloy via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Justin, > > Firstly I really appreciate you taking the mantle and pushing this forward! Like Justin B I'll be bowing out after this. > > I thought it important because I don't believe you'll build consensus in this threathese thred. Is it possible to

On 11/15/10 11:17 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > Duncan Sands<baldrick at free.fr> writes: > >>> There's a big reason to keep it. It's a godsend when trying to bugpoint >>> something where no working llc is available. I've used it quite a lot >>> during AVX development, for example. It's useful for developing any >>> new target.

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:04, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > I guess it would be up to the people interested in a particular target > to figure out a reasonable, maintainable way to manage models for > possibly many subtargets. This proposal is about providing > infrastructure to allow models to be created with not too much effort. > It doesn't say anything about