similar to: [LLVMdev] The name of LLVM

On Dec 21, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > Hi LLVM, > > I have a question that is irrelevant to LLVM developing, but do not > know where to post. I found the LLVM webpage uses the following new > introduction of LLVM > "The LLVM Project is a collection of modular and reusable compiler > and toolchain technologies. Despite its name, LLVM has little to do >

> "LLVM" is officially no longer an acronym. The acronym it once expanded too was confusing, and inappropriate almost from day 1. :) As LLVM has grown to encompass other subprojects, it became even less useful and meaningless. > > In short, it is just "The LLVM Project", and LLVM doesn't stand for anything anymore. It is a nice short domain name though :)

On Dec 21, 2011, at 7:05 PM, 陳韋任 wrote: >> "LLVM" is officially no longer an acronym. The acronym it once expanded too was confusing, and inappropriate almost from day 1. :) As LLVM has grown to encompass other subprojects, it became even less useful and meaningless. >> >> In short, it is just "The LLVM Project", and LLVM doesn't stand for anything

The LLVM term in Wikipedia still uses the old explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Level_Virtual_Machine On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 21, 2011, at 7:05 PM, 陳韋任 wrote: > >>> "LLVM" is officially no longer an acronym.  The acronym it once expanded too was confusing, and inappropriate almost

I have gone ahead and implemented the unfold distance option as mentioned in the source. the patch is here http://home.comcast.net/~moppsy/compiz/cube-unfold-distance.patch

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi all, > > http://www.llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#BuildRecType suggests > us to define recursive types via opaque and refine. Since LLVM has > structural types, %rt = type { %rt* } and %rt1 = type { %rt* } should > be same structurally. I tested the following code, > > %rt =

Another quick question. In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). Is that for back-compatibility to support OCaml < 3.10.0? On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at

I was always annoyed that you couldn't terminate an action with dbus so I have written this patch which fixes that. Hopefully this can be included. I wrote the patch trying to repeat as little code as possible so I just added a boolean parameter to the dbusHandleActivateMessage and changed the name to dbusHandleActivateDeactivateMessage. You could probably change the deactivate parameter

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language > reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and > atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM 3.0? Hopefully, yes; the implementation is in progress. -Eli

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> In

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language >> reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and >> atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> In

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:10 PM, David Gardner <daveg at xmos.com> wrote: > Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou <at> seas.upenn.edu> writes: >> The documents say that all the aa analysis are chained, and give an >> example like opt -basicaa -ds-aa -licm. In this case, does ds-aa >> automatically call basicaa for the case when ds-aa can only return >> MayAlias? This

Hello Jianzhou, On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > Does 2.8 release plan to change anything in Ocaml bindings? > http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#whatsnew does not list any > relevant features. I usually wait until around nowish before a release to sync llvm-c and the ocaml bindings. I'll start the process.

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 6, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > >> Which semantics is better? I guess both are fine because if we assume >> these two def's are same, then it is 0 as >> 'ConstantFoldBinaryInstruction', while if we assume they are different >> then it is equal to

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>> In the definition of 'monotonic' ordering, >>> ... "If an address is written

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> The current memory model section ends with the following discussions: >> >> "Note that in cases where none of the atomic intrinsics are used, this >> model places only one restriction on

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 2, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Chapter 4 in http://llvm.org/pubs/2005-05-04-LattnerPHDThesis.html >> compares the precision of alias analysis in LLVM at that time. Does >> the latest LLVM still follow the similar results? I was also

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> On

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> Another quick question. >> In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when >> ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). >> Is that for