similar to: [LLVMdev] [llvm-c] Copyright notice in language bindings

On 03/13/2013 07:26 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > LLVM's license includes a binary redistribution clause: > http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license Hi Chris, the problem with the binary redistribution clause is that the bindings will not be linked with any part of LLVM. The bindings will load an LLVM shared library (dll/so/dylib) at runtime and thus an application compiled

On Mar 13, 2013, at 6:40 AM, Moritz Maxeiner <moritzmaxeiner at googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > If I write LLVM bindings for a language X, in which I obviously > need to at least use parts of the llvm-c headers (constants, enums, typedefs, function names and > signatures) do I need to include the LLVM copyright notice? > > Whereas llvm-c has multiple headers (e.g.

On Mar 13, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Moritz Maxeiner <moritzmaxeiner at googlemail.com> wrote: > On 03/13/2013 07:26 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> LLVM's license includes a binary redistribution clause: >> http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license > > Hi Chris, > > the problem with the binary redistribution clause is that the bindings will not be linked with

While writing bindings to LLVM for another language via the c api I noticed that LLVMAlignment and LLVMStackAlignment do not use 1<<x like all the others, but 31<<x and 7<x respectively (see below, or here: http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/Core_8h_source.html#l00148). It's likely this is as it is intended, but it does look out-of-place enough that I thought it might be a

Hi, when building llvm as a shared library LLVMInitializeNativeTarget and co. (located in llvm/Support/TargetSelect) will not get exported as symbol into the shared library, because they are static inline. Since they are functions defined in the C API no one else inside LLVM calls them, which results in them not being exported. This is, of course, no problem for C programs using the C API,

I would like to use the LLVM-C bindings to provide LLVM access with an OO-design in another language (D), e.g. map from the C API back up to a D API that closely resembles the original C++ API. Since I would like to have D (with its own exception system) to handle the IO, I need a new C API function (unless there is one and I haven't found it): LLVMBool

Hi Rafael, We’ve discussed why a license change is preferable over the span of several years now. I’m happy to explain over the phone, contact me off list and we can talk. -Chris > On Aug 10, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I still don't see any justification in the text why a license change is >

This has already been discussed extensively in the public. The threads are available in the archives. -Chris > On Aug 10, 2017, at 1:05 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry, but I really don't think a private conversation is appropriate > for such discussions. > > If the motive cannot be explained in public I have no choice

Hi all, Now that we’ve settled on the license legalese to get to, we need to start the process of relicensing. We’re still sorting through all of the details of what this will take, but the first step is clear: new contributions to LLVM will need to be under both the old license structure and the new one (until the old structure is completely phased out). From a mechanical perspective, this is

Hi, I'm currently working my way through the tutorial with LLVM 3.9.1 on Windows (finished chapter 4) and stumbled over a few things which could be improved: - "LLVMContext" does not exist as a variable -> "TheContext" - Chapter 3: 5 times - Chapter 4: 1 time - Chapter 5: 4 times - Chapter 6: 2 times - Chapter 7: 2 times 3.4. Function Code

> On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > I can find old threads about it, but nothing saying why it was decided > that contributor agreement wouldn't work. Care to send the URL? Here are some quick points that come to mind: 1. It raises the bar to contribution, because something must be “signed” before a

> On Mar 14, 2017, at 3:02 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 11, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Moritz Angermann via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Matthias, >> >> what I’m observing right now is that replacing opt+llc with an clang invocation, and >> subsequently fewer intermediate files,

Hi Matthias, what I’m observing right now is that replacing opt+llc with an clang invocation, and subsequently fewer intermediate files, increases the consumed time with -O0 by 200%. We used to always run opt with -mem2reg -globalopt, and I believe those are not part of -O0 (is there an easy way to list all passes that -OX flags to clang imply for the optimizer and code gen?). Could the IR imply

Salvatore Bonaccorso writes ("Re: Updated Xen packages for XSA 216..225"): > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:34:38PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 12:33:54PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Moritz M?hlenhoff writes ("Re: Updated Xen packages for XSA 216..225"): > > > > Sorry for the late reply, was on vacation for a week.

Hi List, does somebody know a SIP Provider which offers reseller possibilities? Moritz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20040828/bddb5898/attachment.htm

Hi Matthias, I’m trying to see if I can make do with the clang interface only. How do I pass flags to opt or llc? Say I want to enable/disable tbaa, which could be done with `--enable-tbaa=true/false` or `-mem2reg` or `-globalopt`? Would the `-llvm` switch be, what I’m looking for or the `-Xclang`, or something else entirely? Cheers, Moritz > On Mar 11, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Matthias Braun

Firstly, do you need "main.dsp" defined as an external symbol, or can all external references go via "main"? If the answer is the latter, that will make the solution simpler. If only the latter, you will need to make a change to LLVM here: http://llvm-cs.pcc.me.uk/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/AsmPrinter.cpp#650 Basically you would need to add a hook to the TargetLoweringObjectFile

Hi, I was wondering, if someone could point me into the right direction, towards building just llc and opt (potentially 4.0 + patches) to distribute them in the interim with compiler? The idea is that we’d like to pin our llvm ir code generator to a specific set of llc and opt tools, with potential patches applied, until we manage to get all those patches upstreamed. I’d like to find answers to

I suspect that the format isn't important if you do that, but I wouldn't recommend it, at least because inlining (and other inter-procedural optimizations) are not expected to work correctly if you produce IR like that. Peter On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Moritz Angermann <moritz.angermann at gmail.com > wrote: > Peter, > > thanks again! Yes, we only need to refer to

Hello, I thought about doing a dynamic detection of signed integer overflow for OpenCL kernels based on the generated LLVM IR. A problem seems to be that the LLVM IR does not differentiate between signed and unsigned types in general. But for instance for additions it should be possible to use the "nsw" flag as indicator that the operations involves signed types. Is this a legal