similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM 3.3 in llvm.org Ubuntu APT repository

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Konstantin Tokarev <annulen at yandex.ru> wrote: >> It seems like the llvm-3.3-* packages are gone from the Ubuntu Precise >> APT repository, http://llvm.org/apt/precise/. >> >> Is this on purpose? Any recommended replacements? (Launchpad?) > > http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#getting-started-quickly-a-summary Sorry, but

06.10.2013, 18:44, "David Nadlinger" <code at klickverbot.at>: > Hi all, > > It seems like the llvm-3.3-* packages are gone from the Ubuntu Precise > APT repository, http://llvm.org/apt/precise/. > > Is this on purpose? Any recommended replacements? (Launchpad?) http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#getting-started-quickly-a-summary -- Regards, Konstantin

Sylvestre (CC'd) might know where to find it on Debian/Ubuntu repositories. cheers, --renato On 6 October 2013 18:45, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: > Konstantin, This is a legitimate question because the packages are > maintained by the LLVM project and kept on llvm.org. > > David, while I don't see 3.3 packages I do see 3.4 snapshots in the > repository.

Konstantin, This is a legitimate question because the packages are maintained by the LLVM project and kept on llvm.org. David, while I don't see 3.3 packages I do see 3.4 snapshots in the repository. Will that not do? If there are any regressions keeping you back on 3.3 now's a good time to report them! Alp. On 06/10/2013 18:22, David Nadlinger wrote: > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 6:12

Hello, I did some cleanup of the repositories today (Sunday). I remove all the 3.3 snapshots which were wrong (they were older than the official 3.3 release and not maintained). I didn't think that anybody was using them (Looks like I was wrong, sorry!). You are not happy about the 3.4 packages ? Sylvestre On 06/10/2013 19:52, Renato Golin wrote: > Sylvestre (CC'd) might know where

Hi Sitvanit, On 12/07/12 22:18, Sitvanit Ruah wrote: > I ran "configure -help " and it says > > usage: configure [OPTION]..... [VAR=VALUE] > > So I assume configure CC=... is the right syntax. Isn't it? while you might think so, try it the other way round. Also, by doing make VERBOSE=1 you can see which compiler is really being used. Ciao, Duncan. > >

> Hi all, > After reading the documentation on clang I still have the following > question: > How do I read the bitcode generated by clang from a C++ file? I need to > have all the AST information in memory. AST has nothing to do with LLVM bitcode. -- Regards, Konstantin

03.12.2012, 11:44, "Marc J. Driftmeyer" <mjd at reanimality.com>: > One of the most conservative distributions is Debian. RHEL/CentOS is more conservative. RHEL 6 ships Python 2.6.6, RHEL 5 (which is still widely used) ships 2.4.3 -- Regards, Konstantin

What is the best level to use for backend development? We do not need to generate machine code, but rather an intermediate representation that will give us the control flow graph. Is this the llvm IR? If so, how do I read into memory a file that was generated by clang++ -emit-llvm <source file>. Thanks, Sitvanit Sitvanit Ruah Formal Verification Group IBM Haifa Research Laboratory Tel:

19.08.2016, 18:38, "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org>: > On 19 August 2016 at 16:34, Konstantin Tokarev <annulen at yandex.ru> wrote: >>>  But that affected *everybody*. Using Git or SVN, using Windows or >>>  Linux, trying to download Linux, LLVM, GCC, Linaro stuff. >> >>  But with SVN you don't fetch complete history. > >

Hi Konstantin, good point. but I my intention is to have something like the llva project. Basically I would like to define a machine that looks as if it has processors running natively llvm code. And when that runs enhance the llvm byte code with some specific instructions. Besides this if I make my measurements on the running of llvm bytecode I can test several platforms simultaneously because I

> Yes, it is the same error referring to 4.1.2. > > /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.1.2/../../../../include/c+ > +/4.1.2/i386-redhat-linux/bits/gthr-default.h:114:1: error: weakref > declaration must have internal > linkage > __gthrw(pthread_key_delete) > > There are several such errors. Are you sure you are usin gcc44? Don't you need to run CC=gcc44 CXX=g++44

15.08.2012, 19:25, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>: > Three reasons. > 1) I need to modify the code to support extensions to the standard demangler. > 2) GCC's version is GPL v3. And? BTW, there is BSD-licensed implementation of __cxa_demangle in libcxxrt > 3) Need windows support. > > Micah -- Regards, Konstantin

I tried CC=gcc44 CXX=g++44 ../llvm/configure and got CC=gcc44: Command not found So the syntax is indeed as wriiten in the help. Sitvanit Ruah Formal Verification Group IBM Haifa Research Laboratory Tel: 972-4-828-1249 From: Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> To: Sitvanit Ruah/Haifa/IBM at IBMIL, Cc: Konstantin Tokarev <annulen at yandex.ru>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu,

19.08.2016, 18:30, "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > On 19 August 2016 at 16:22, C Bergström <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>  Have you ever stayed in a non-hilton hotel while traveling? I don't >>  mean couch surfing, but just average place.. I'd even add some above >>  average places to the list and when you get

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org> wrote: > I did some cleanup of the repositories today (Sunday). > I remove all the 3.3 snapshots which were wrong (they were older than the > official 3.3 release and not maintained). > I didn't think that anybody was using them (Looks like I was wrong, sorry!). No problem, we were just using them

On 9/19/13 9:53 AM, Herbei Dacian wrote: > > Hi Konstantin, > good point. > but I my intention is to have something like the llva project. If you want something like the LLVA project for user-space applications, then you basically want to use LLVM as-is. The only things missing are the instructions that replace certain in-line assembly sequences that cannot be represented by

I don't remember anything other that what I've written in the bug João has mentioned. Probably something like this patch http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410#c6 ? 2013/2/20 João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com>: > I think so. There have been other reports lately related to this being > wrong. > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14410 > > CC'ing

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> My question: Is there an easy way of disabling the name-mangling part >> but keep the rest of the CC that I missed? > if you use "\1" + "usual name", it will disable name mangling if you are > lucky. A leading \1 is LLVM's way of saying: leave this name alone! Seems like

The patch looks incorrect. The code just needs to handle \1 properly and clang extended to add explicit \1 to the names which does not require mangling. I do not think that moving whole mangling to clang is a good idea, because then everyone who uses LLVM to call WinApi functions will need to mangle by hands. On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com>