similar to: [LLVMdev] check if llvm was built with REQUIRE_RTTI

On 12 Apr 2012, at 10:34, Gibheer wrote: > Hi, > > the rubinius project needs llvm built with REQUIRE_RTTI to > successfully compile. It can use the system ruby, if it fits, but how > can I find out, if llvm was build that way? > > thank you, > > Gibheer You could run llvm-config --cxxflags to get the C++ compiler flags to use for files that include LLVM headers and

Hi all, I'm having problems compiling LLVM 3.2 with RTTI enabled. Since my code makes heavy use of the Boost libraries, RTTI is a must. This is the script I use to compile (as root): SRC_ROOT=$PWD OBJ_ROOT=/export/apps/llvm INSTALL_ROOT=/usr/local mkdir -p $OBJ_ROOT cd $OBJ_ROOT $SRC_ROOT/configure --prefix=$INSTALL_ROOT \

Hello. Some time ago I committed a Rubinius assembly-based HTTP parser generated from Ragel to the Rubinius git repository. Yesterday I made a Mongrel gem which installs and works on Rubinius. This basically involved commenting out anything to do with fastthread or the http11 C extension. If there''s interest in releasing a Rubinius-targeted gem, I can make changes to the Rakefile to

Unicorn is an HTTP server for Rack applications designed to only serve fast clients on low-latency, high-bandwidth connections and take advantage of features in Unix/Unix-like kernels. Slow clients should only be served by placing a reverse proxy capable of fully buffering both the the request and response in between Unicorn and slow clients. * http://unicorn.bogomips.org/ * mongrel-unicorn at

Before anything else, let me state this: Of course it''s going to be PAINFULLY slow on MRI. That''s not the point :) I thought I''d try out writing out a Ruby version of the parser for the purposes of Rubinius. For those of you who aren''t aware, Ragel supports a goto-driven FSM on Rubinius by injecting assembly directly, and Rubinus head honcho guy Evan Phoenix

Hello, In Rubinius we're seeing an occasional crash inside LLVM that always happens inside getenv(), which is used for example when creating a MCContext (inside lib/MC/MCContext.cpp, it checks getenv("AS_SECURE_LOG_FILE")). The problem is that getenv() and friends aren't thread safe and Rubinius provides a multithreaded system. We can relatively easily get locking setup around

Just a few observations now that I have completed the upgrade from RSpec-1 to RSpec-2. 1. In my project (2800 examples across about 40 files), MRI 1.9.2-p0 takes roughly 3 times longer to complete the spec run. Runtimes grew from 2.2s (rspec 1.3.0) to 6.1s (2.0.0.rc). 2. Rubinius 1.1.0 runs RSpec-2 without error. 3. JRuby 1.5.1 runs RSpec-2 without error. 4. Both Rubinius and JRuby print a

Hey everyone, first of all, thank you for the tremendous work and effort on making Rails more awesome every day. I''ve brought up this "issue" on Github last Friday. [1] Steve Klabnik told me to bring the discussion here, as it''s more appropriate. The thing is, there is some amount of logic scattered around Rails (and its tests) that depends upon error/exception

Right. glibc's amusing stance is that you setenv/putenv are not thread safe, but getenv is. I assume Ruby exposes setenv and therefore simply not calling setenv isn't an option. Would it solve your problems if all getenv() calls happened at cl::ParseCommandLineOptions() time? On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink at gmail.com>wrote: > Hello, > >

Hi Andy, One of the issues that I found not intuitive, is that when an ExecutionEngine is deallocated, the memory manager's destructor is also called. This resulted in having to write two objects in my case, one as a per JIT request memory manager and one global JIT memory manager. The per request JIT memory manager gets memory from the global manager, but both ended up implementing

Hi fxruby hackers, new version 1.6.23 is out with the following changes. Unfortunately the fxruby.org homepage is down and I don''t have access to it. Therefore I''ve moved the documentation to http://rubydoc.info/github/larskanis/fxruby/1.6/frames and converted to yard. Have fun! === 1.6.23 / 2012-03-08 * Add YARD documentation support * Use generated Manifest.txt * Support

Hi Dirkjan, Are you using JIT or MCJIT? Cheers. ________________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] on behalf of Dirkjan Bussink [d.bussink at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:18 AM To: Kaylor, Andrew Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Memory clean for applications using LLVM for JIT compilation Hi Andy, One

Hi, what's the current state of being able to build simple analysis passes out-of-tree against only llvm headers and libraries with llvm-config? I see that clang and klee do not use llvm-config but for example rubinius does. Should both approaches be documented? Currently for example docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html says "you need to create a new directory somewhere in the LLVM source

Hello all, I've already bothered people on IRC with this question and it was recommended to ask it here. First of all, some context. In Rubinius (http://rubini.us/, http://github.com/rubinius/rubinius) we use LLVM for our JIT. We create LLVM IR using the C++ API and turn that into machine code using ExecutionEngine::runJITOnFunction. The resulting native code is then installed as the

Hi, For those of you that attended RubyConf 2007, what were your impressions? Any more thoughts on JRuby, Rubinius, IronRuby or Wuby? Regards, Dan

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink at gmail.com>wrote: > Hello all, > > I've already bothered people on IRC with this question and it was > recommended to ask it here. > > First of all, some context. In Rubinius (http://rubini.us/, > http://github.com/rubinius/rubinius) we use LLVM for our JIT. We create > LLVM IR using the C++ API and

Il giorno 18/mar/2013, alle ore 15:14, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> ha scritto: > Nicola Gigante <nicola.gigante at gmail.com> writes: > >> The error I get is the following: >> Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: >> "typeinfo for llvm::FoldingSetImpl", referenced from: >> typeinfo for llvm::FoldingSet<Type> in Program.o

Hello all. At XMOS we are working towards updating the upstream XCore backend for newer versions of the chip. XCore is the XMOS processor. The XCore backend was written by Richard Osborne at XMOS. Richard has moved on. The current code owner in CODE_OWNERS.TXT, Robert Lytton, has also moved on. For some years XMOS has developed the compiler in-house, for new versions of the chip, but not

On Oct 8, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > Right now, on X86, creating multiple ExecutionEngines in the same > process causes an assertion. > Yes. This is by design. > If it's supposed to always be a singleton, should there be a way to > get the process's ExecutionEngine instance? > I can't see why. You could make a server to process llvm code. >

Typo "responisbility", otherwise looks great to me, please apply. For ARM, please just file a bugzilla suggesting that the ARM backend adopt this. Thanks Richard! -Chris On Mar 9, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > On 02/03/10 00:11, Jim Grosbach wrote: >> On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: >> >>> On 01/03/10 21:14, Chris Lattner