similar to: [LLVMdev] Binutils and LLVM - gathering information

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > Binutils and LLVM > > As part of "owning our own toolchain", various people have expressed an interest and have been working on creating various tools that duplicate the functionality of tools available on other systems. > > As a start, I'd like to summarize the current status, and

On Nov 6, 2012, at 2:19 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > Binutils and LLVM > > As part of "owning our own toolchain", various people have expressed an interest and have been working on creating various tools that duplicate the functionality of tools available on other systems. I have summarized the information that I've gathered, and put it up

So, I'm trying to use this file to look inside COFF files. Got the header. OK. Now I want to look at the sections. Look, there's a section iterator. I can use that! So, I write: for (llvm::object::section_iterator iter = Obj.begin_sections (); iter != Obj.end_sections(); ++iter ) and it doesn't compile. There's no ++ for section iterators. Apparently, you're supposed to

If you haven't already found it, you should look inside tools/llvm-objdump/llvm-objdump.cpp, which is an easy-to-follow example of how these APIs work --Sean Silva. On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com>wrote: > So, I'm trying to use this file to look inside COFF files. > Got the header. OK. > > Now I want to look at the sections.

On Feb 14, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Howard Hinnant <hhinnant at apple.com> wrote: > Author: hhinnant > Date: Fri Feb 14 15:09:01 2014 > New Revision: 201432 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=201432&view=rev > Log: Remove myself as owner of libc++ > > Modified: > llvm/trunk/CODE_OWNERS.TXT > > Modified: llvm/trunk/CODE_OWNERS.TXT > URL:

In a discussion on IRC, Micheal was complaining about the semantics of StringSet, specifically how the iterators work. DannyB mentioned that we have a Trie class, so I decided to check it out. Lo and behold, I couldn't find _any_ uses of it, and when I deleted it from my system and did a clean rebuild, everything was fine. Looking at the log, the last substantial change to this class was in

The file begins: > #ifndef LLVM_SUPPORT_WIN_COFF_H > #define LLVM_SUPPORT_WIN_COFF_H Why "WIN_COFF_H" - since this code is not windows-specific, as far as I can tell. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists at gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). --

<dynarray> was added to the C++14 standard, libc++ implemented it, and then it was removed. Now (from the standard’s point of view), it is in limbo. I would like to move it into std/experimental; to make it clear that it’s not a part of the standard. Any objections? Anyone using it? — Marshall

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 6, 2012, at 2:19 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Binutils and LLVM >> >> As part of "owning our own toolchain", various people have expressed an interest and have been working on creating various tools that duplicate the functionality of

On Mar 12, 2013, at 7:36 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Renato, > >> The test is initializing srand(1), so in theory, it shouldn't be different >> between compilers, since Clang is using the same libraries. > > If Clang and GCC disagree on the same source, same machine and with > the same libraries, that certainly is odd. But it

Delete it. =] Thanks. On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > In a discussion on IRC, Micheal was complaining about the semantics of > StringSet, specifically how the iterators work. > > DannyB mentioned that we have a Trie class, so I decided to check it out. > Lo and behold, I couldn't find _any_ uses of it, and when I deleted

On Jun 13, 2012, at 4:47 PM, Mikael Lyngvig wrote: > 2012/6/14 Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> wrote: > > If nobody else is doing it, I can translate the FAQ into Sphinx as I'd like > > to begin gradually extending it so that it some day becomes more than just > > bare

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > On 1 June 2015 at 07:20, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > >> This weekend, I got an email from Nuno Lopes informing me that UBSAN now >> paid attention to attribute(nonnull), and he was having some problems with >> it going off when using libc++. >> > >

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > As part of the work on C++17, WG21 released a series of "Technical > Specifications", (TS) which added proposed new features to the standard > library. These were all defined in the namespace 'std::experimental' (and > namespaces inside of that). > > Then, much of these

On Jul 4, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > Hello! > > We want to implement in-process symbolizer for {Address,Thread}Sanitizer testing tools that would be based on LLVM libraries. > I've noticed that llvm-nm (as well as other tools) doesn't demangle C++ names. Is it true, that LLVM doesn't have the code that is capable > of that, and if yes, are there any

Over the weekend I upgraded my system to Mac OS X 10.8, and now a clean cmake build fails. The error message: > Building C object runtime/libprofile/CMakeFiles/profile_rt-static.dir/CommonProfiling.c.o > cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-Wcovered-switch-default" The configuration: > Mac OS X 10.8 > CMake 2.8.8 > LLVM tot > Apple clang version 4.0

> On Feb 6, 2015, at 6:00 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 5 February 2015 at 03:55, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: >> I think that we have consensus here, and we've given people time to chime >> in. What exactly is the process for making this happen? I assume that aKor >> or someone else would need to

On May 21, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > I found a bug in the expansion code for SUB going back to at least LLVM 2.6 and still shows up in trunk. > case ISD::SUB: { > EVT VT = Node->getValueType(0); > assert(TLI.isOperationLegalOrCustom(ISD::ADD, VT) && > TLI.isOperationLegalOrCustom(ISD::XOR, VT) && > "Don't

I found a bug in the expansion code for SUB going back to at least LLVM 2.6 and still shows up in trunk. case ISD::SUB: { EVT VT = Node->getValueType(0); assert(TLI.isOperationLegalOrCustom(ISD::ADD, VT) && TLI.isOperationLegalOrCustom(ISD::XOR, VT) && "Don't know how to expand this subtraction!"); Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::XOR, dl,

On 12 March 2013 14:53, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > I agree; I'm pretty sure that the only guarantee is that for a given > implementation of stand, if you initialize it with the same seed, you get > the same sequence. > > There is no "correct" sequence. > I'm not suggesting a correct sequence, I'm just looking for a way to turn