similar to: [LLVMdev] link native code compiled by llvm and gcc?

On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 11:11:30PM +0800, Jovi Zhang wrote: > Hi, > > Is it possible to link native codes generated by different compiler? > > the usecase could be: > Linux kernel compiled by gcc want to load kernel module compiled by Clang > (I know there have some problem to compile kernel by Clang currently, > but ignore those problem in here) > > I just concern

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:14:57PM +0800, Jovi Zhang wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Jean-Daniel Dupas > <devlists at shadowlab.org> wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, what would be the main benefit of this approach vs DKMS which is already widely used ? > > > Thanks Dupas. > > I checked DKMS you mentioned, basically DKMS is just a ko and its > sources

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Jean-Daniel Dupas <devlists at shadowlab.org> wrote: > Just out of curiosity, what would be the main benefit of this approach vs DKMS which is already widely used ? > Thanks Dupas. I checked DKMS you mentioned, basically DKMS is just a ko and its sources management tool. It's not easy to deploy ko source into target machine, and it's more

Karen Shaeffer <shaeffer at neuralscape.com> writes: > I am also aware of the way too common problem of folks stuck in a time > warp, because they have dependencies on old libraries that they cannot > upgrade. IMO, a development effort should not slow the pace of feature > adoption to support folks who have not planned for future upgrades in > an intelligent manner. Rather

The tests by design are syntactically correct, semantically correct, and have deterministic output. -moh From: Nick Lewycky [mailto:nlewycky at google.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 4:14 PM To: Haghighat, Mohammad R Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [icFuzz] Help needed with analyzing randomly generated tests that fail on clang 3.4 trunk On 24 June 2013 16:10, Haghighat,

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:20:09PM +0000, Haghighat, Mohammad R wrote: > The tests by design are syntactically correct, semantically correct, and have deterministic output. > > -moh Hi, I wanted to believe you had a randomized code generator that could cover the entire valid input space. (smiles ;) But the test cited was not generated by a randomized code generator. It is way too

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:35:07PM -0400, Aaron Ballman via llvm-dev wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 13 October 2015 at 16:41, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >>> - *Be welcoming.* We strive to be a community that welcomes and supports > >>>

Hi Karen, Thanks much for your comment and for sharing of your experience. icFuzz has a core that is "really" random, but does not cover the entire C space. The tool was designed from scratch to be extensible, and comes with a couple of extensions that target some of compiler optimizations optimizing compilers typically do: CSE, loop interchange, vectorization, etc. But even in the case

On Jan 8, 2013, at 4:24 PM, dag at cray.com wrote: > I am personally very much in favor of this. C++11 really is a huge leap > from C++03 in terms of readability, maintainability and safety. I agree completely. > Why not C++11 libraries? Implementation/capatability reasons? I don't > know anything about how the various implementation compare in terms of > completeness. But

On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 06:30:42PM -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jan 8, 2013, at 4:24 PM, dag at cray.com wrote: > > I am personally very much in favor of this. C++11 really is a huge leap > > from C++03 in terms of readability, maintainability and safety. > > I agree completely. > > > > As for gcc version, it looks like 4.7.2 is in Debian Wheezy and

On 02/05/2013 03:58 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com > <mailto:preston.briggs at gmail.com>> wrote: > > The MBlaze backend seems to be essentially unmaintained since > 2011. The maintainer (Wesley Peck who is BCC'ed) seems to have > vanished, and in fact all emails to

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:31 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On 4/28/13 11:42 AM, Jovi Zhang wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> First of all, I didn't study on compiler too much, I'm a Linux kernel >> developer, >> Now I have one idea about compile kernel module by using llvm framework. >> >> In Linux world, traditionally

On 4/30/13 1:10 AM, Jovi Zhang wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:31 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: >> On 4/28/13 11:42 AM, Jovi Zhang wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> First of all, I didn't study on compiler too much, I'm a Linux kernel >>> developer, >>> Now I have one idea about compile kernel module by using llvm

> I've obviously being playing with C++ too long because my > instinct immediately told me that dynamically sized arrays on the > stack are't allowed but apparently that's fine for C99 (g++ also seems > fine with this is you don't specify -pedantic) It's all fun and games until someone decides to evaluate sizeof(arr). ;-) I think a more limited form is coming to

Hi, First of all, I didn't study on compiler too much, I'm a Linux kernel developer, Now I have one idea about compile kernel module by using llvm framework. In Linux world, traditionally compile Linux kernel module only have one way: compile it to machine code directly, deploy to target machine, then run it in target machine. This have some problem from long term view, especially

Hello all, Using the Apache Wiki [1] I summed up what can be used simultaneously by gcc, MSVC and clang. I mostly considered only the latest versions of the proposals where there were several, where not there is a link to a note at the bottom. Furthermore I did not scourge through 3 bug databases and I implicitly trusted the wiki page. I drew up a list of profiles, listing the base

On 4/28/13 11:42 AM, Jovi Zhang wrote: > Hi, > > First of all, I didn't study on compiler too much, I'm a Linux kernel developer, > Now I have one idea about compile kernel module by using llvm framework. > > In Linux world, traditionally compile Linux kernel module only have one way: > compile it to machine code directly, deploy to target machine, then > run it in

Thanks for the reply. Please see my inline responses. On 15/08/13 12:58, Tim Northover wrote: > Hi Dan, > >> It is not stated how the "<ty>" type is used as we are told the >> type of result is type* and sizeof(<type>)*NumElements is the >> amount of memory so from my perspective it looks like <ty> is >> never used which would seem to

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:20:33PM +0100, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > On 13 October 2015 at 19:30, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > For some of the reasons we at least need to make it clear the scope: > > http://adainitiative.org/2014/02/18/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/ > > Seems like a very personal opinion, and most

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl at getdesigned.at> wrote: > > On 11.01.2013, at 20:08, Eli Bendersky wrote: > >>>> I suppose this tradeoff can be evaluated by looking at the delta >>>> between 4.5 and 4.6 which is actually supported by MSVC 2010 and Clang >>>> 3.1 >>> >>> Makes perfect sense to