similar to: [LLVMdev] Status of multi-thread LLVM

On 10 March 2010 16:57, 琬菁楊 <ching1119.cs96 at g2.nctu.edu.tw> wrote: > I think the main issue is that EFI C dialect is not ANSI-C compliant: the > size of pointer is determined at the run-time and therefore the layout of > the structure is not static. Does LLVM support this model? Hi Ching, The LLVM IR doesn't care about the size of your pointers, and this is why you have the

Hello all, I am highly interestd in implementing C compiler for EFI Byte Code in LLVM and participate in Google Summer Code. EFI is a much larger, more complex,OS-like replacement for the older BIOS firmware interface present in all IBM PC-compatible personal computers. and the EFI specification provides for a processor-independent device driver environment(like virtualmachine), called EFI Byte

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote: > On 10 March 2010 16:57, 琬菁楊 <ching1119.cs96 at g2.nctu.edu.tw> wrote: >> I think the main issue is that EFI C dialect is not ANSI-C compliant: the >> size of pointer is determined at the run-time and therefore the layout of >> the structure is not static. Does LLVM support this

Hi, I am trying to use the update_attributes on object with nested attributes and I am getting the following error: ProductPrice expected, got HashWithIndifferentAccess Here''s the situation (simplified): class Product < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :productPrice end class ProductPrice < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :product, :dependent => true

Hi, Is there documentation for the details of the xend HTTP protocol available? Thanks, Denis Bohm -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of

Other suggestions 1/ Write a separate MI pass to split the macro MI which was generated earlier as a result of ISel to multiple MIs. 2/ Take the decision of splitting later in the pipeling during MC lowering. Decision about when you need to split should be driven by your intent to do any further processing over constituent instruction. ~ Jatin On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Jatin Bhateja

I want to be able to find items according to various params - category_id, member_id, type_id, rating, etc. What I have now is something like: if(@params[''category_id'']) @items=Item.find(:all, :conditions=>["category_id=?", @params[''category_id'']) elsif(@params[''category_id''] and @params[''member_id''])

I have used shorewall in the past and loved it. However, at the time it did not support brouting and because of that I had to remove it for a faster solution. Now that faster solution is failing and I want to go back to what I liked. I have never set up a brouter but I have been doing a lot of reading on it, both on your site and many others. I all cases what I see is a brouter/firewall

Hi Nagaraju, Few suggestions split this into following steps. 1/ DAG Legalization : Custom lower the instruction (branch in your case) appropriately in legalization to target specific DAG nodes and glue the nodes together which you want scheduler should schedule together. 2/ Instruction Selection : Define patterns to match the custom DAG nodes. Thus actual decision of creating multiple

2010/3/20 Louis Gerbarg <lgerbarg at gmail.com> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:08 AM, 琬菁楊 wrote: >> >> >> Hello Tristan and all, >> >> I have already know that if I want to do this feature(c -> EFI Byte code) >> for GCC >> I should further

Hello Tristan and all, I have already know that if I want to do this feature(c -> EFI Byte code) for GCC I should further modify the GCC front end(parser) to solve the problem (the size of pointer is determined at run time). I have read a powerpoint about LLVM ( http://llvm.org/pubs/2008-10-04-ACAT-LLVM-Intro.pdf) It is the LLVM-GCC design graph (

Hi All, I am working on a target which requires to generated two instructions for a single branch instruction. ex: imm 1 br r4,0xabcd branch address is 0x1abcd, imm has the upper 16 bits and br has lower 16 bits. Can anyone let me know how to write these kind of patterns in the InstrInfo.td file. Thanks in Advance, Nagaraju

Hi Tristan, > But it is not an error, otherwise it would be hard to use malloc() like > functions. > > I cannot understand that it would be hard to use malloc() like functions the parameter passed to malloc is evaluated at runtime what is the issue of malloc when sizeof is determined at runtime? thanks ching -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

Hello Chris, Which won't matter (as long as sizeof is consistent), because EFI is a > closed system. > What is the meaning of closed system?? Is it 1. not open source 2. EBC binary is only running on a single EFI EBC interpreter and never interfacing with the outside VM?? thanks ching -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, Chris > 2010/3/20 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > > >> On Mar 19, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Louis Gerbarg wrote: >> >> >>> What do you mean by "variable sized pointers"? What does: >>> >>> struct S {void *X; }; >>> >>> return for sizeof(struct S); ? >>> >> >> It doesn't, at

Hello Chris, I have survey the efi specification and ask some question to efi engineer. Difference between EFI C and ANSI C is as following: 1. void* In EFI C, the void* is 4-byte for 32-bit processor and 8-byte for 64-bit processor. And it can appears in any where like ANSI C. So the main problem is that struct layout like struct S{ void* X; }; is not static. 2.

Hello guruz. I have big trouble. I installed SAMBA 2.2.8 from 2.2.3a. My problem is about administrator privilegies. When I log on some WIN2k workstation as root of SAMBA domain I have no admin privilegies as domain administrator(remote admin any workstation, shares modify, policy modify ...). It worked well before. I was finding solution 2 mounth but without some solution. I have no idea why

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:08 AM, 琬菁楊 wrote: > > > Hello Tristan and all, > > I have already know that if I want to do this feature(c -> EFI Byte code) > for GCC > I should further modify the GCC front end(parser) to solve the problem (the > size > of pointer is determined at

Hi, First of all, my apologies for the extension of this message, but it is needeed for you to undertand my problem. Straight to the point: i have this domain in my company running in Samba 3.0.2 My users are: hcoelho, jardim, gamito, yesenia, smatias, fqueiros, faugusto, vamaro, peixinho, aragao, dina, pinho. I have this shares with the users that can access them and the correponding Linux

On Mar 30, 2010, at 10:31 AM, 琬菁楊 wrote: > What do you mean by "variable sized pointers"? What does: > > struct S {void *X; }; > > return for sizeof(struct S); ? > > I have surveyed the UEFI spec2.3. > In my opinion, if the EBC VM is running on 32-bit processor, return value is 4 > if the EBC VM is running on 64-bit processor, return value is 8 > >