similar to: RFC: Improving the experience of first-time contributors

On 9/12/16 11:40 PM, Davide Italiano wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Alfred Perlstein via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hey folks, >> >> I'm new here, wasn't expecting to subscribe but here I am. The reason I'm >> here is that I came across a doc bug, I spent quite a bit of time learning >> all the tips and

On 13 September 2016 at 07:59, Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > This is exactly why we should switch to github. It is much easier for new > contributors to start with small fixes. There are two really quite separate issues here: 1) Patches, even trivial ones can sit unreviewed for long periods of time leading to a negative first time contribution

We are pleased to announce the first LLVM Cauldron, to be held on Thursday September 8th 2016 in Hebden Bridge, UK. This is the day before the GNU Tools Cauldron being held at the same venue, so we hope to take advantage of the high concentration of compiler enthusiasts and to encourage lots of cross-pollination between communities. This will be a one-day conference with a single talks track and

Hi all. I'm assuming most people reading this email are familiar with LLVM's code review process <http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews> as well as LLVM Weekly, the development newsletter I've written and sent out every Monday since Jan 2014. Since that time, it's provided something of a "signal boost" for important mailing list discussions and

Dear community, We are trying to setup a BoF ( Raising Next Generation of LLVM Developers, http://sched.co/8Yzs). In our academic-oriented environments the main work force is students: undergrads, grads or PhD (rarely postdocs). Often we have limited time to bring somebody up to speed and we have to it in a productive and motivating for both parties way. I believe most of you had

LLVM Weekly - #57, Feb 2nd 2015 =============================== If you prefer, you can read a HTML version of this email at <http://llvmweekly.org/issue/57>. Welcome to the fifty-seventh issue of LLVM Weekly, a weekly newsletter (published every Monday) covering developments in LLVM, Clang, and related projects. LLVM Weekly is brought to you by [Alex Bradbury](http://asbradbury.org).

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote: > On 27 August 2017 at 00:01, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote: >> Hi all. I'm assuming most people reading this email are familiar with LLVM's >> code review process <http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews> >> as well as LLVM Weekly, the

LLVM Weekly - #43, Oct 27th 2014 ================================ If you prefer, you can read a HTML version of this email at <http://llvmweekly.org/issue/43>. Welcome to the forty-third issue of LLVM Weekly, a weekly newsletter (published every Monday) covering developments in LLVM, Clang, and related projects. LLVM Weekly is brought to you by [Alex Bradbury](http://asbradbury.org).

On 14 November 2017 at 16:03, Alex Bradbury <asb at lowrisc.org> wrote: > Dear list, > > At the RISC-V BoF at the LLVM Dev Meeting and the longer working > session the day after, those of us working on RISC-V with LLVM decided > it would be worthwhile to schedule regular sync-up calls in order to > better co-ordinate ongoing work between different developers. This is >

If I’m following correctly, there are two size-limited areas. One area, limited to 2GB, is the “text” area. This contains all the code. Then there’s a “global” area, limited to 4GB, which is pointed to by the global pointer. This contains the GOT, plus a flexible area that the object file can stick small bits of data into. And then outside of both of those, additional data is unlimited. It

Hi, Sam. I think that it's a fair comparison. Keep in mind that the GP is only used to reach global variables of local scope and the GOT, where the address of global variables of global scope reside. This model assumes that the distance between the GP and the global data area, GOT and local scope variables is defined at link time. __ Evandro Menezes ◊ SiFive ◊ Austin, TX > On Mar

Oh, I wasn’t really thinking about devices without an MMU where the addresses are physically separated. Makes sense. This reminds me of rwpi on ARM; it has a sort of similar scheme of referring to data indirectly through a pointer, but it also changes the ABI to keep the pointer in a reserved register. -Eli From: Evandro Menezes <evandro.menezes at sifive.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020

Hi all, I am proposing the integration of a backend targeting the RISC-V ISA. RISC-V is a free and open instruction set architecture that was originally developed at UC Berkeley. Future development of the ISA specification will be handled by the 501(c)(6) non-profit RISC-V Foundation and its members <https://riscv.org/membership/?action=viewlistings>. You can find much more information at

Dear list, At the RISC-V BoF at the LLVM Dev Meeting and the longer working session the day after, those of us working on RISC-V with LLVM decided it would be worthwhile to schedule regular sync-up calls in order to better co-ordinate ongoing work between different developers. This is primarily to sync-up, share blocking issues and so on. I understand something similar was done during the

LLVM Weekly - #1, Jan 6th 2014 ============================== Welcome to the inaugural issue of LLVM Weekly, a weekly newsletter (published every Monday) covering developments in LLVM, Clang, and related projects. I've been a long time lurker on the LLVM and Clang mailing lists and have been using LLVM extensively in my PhD research for the past 4 years. I thought it might be worthwhile to

As many of you know, I have a growing series of patches for a RISC-V backend under/awaiting review <https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/?authors=asb&order=updated>, <http://github.com/lowrisc/riscv-llvm>. I'll be posting a larger status update on that work either later today or tomorrow, this RFC focuses on an issue that came up during review which I think may benefit from

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:59 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk > wrote: > On 27 Oct 2014, at 09:33, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote: > > > The Haskell community have put together a [proposal for an improved LLVM > > backend to GHC]( > https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ImprovedLLVMBackend). > > They intend to ship GHC with its

On 23 November 2017 at 09:38, Alex Bradbury <asb at lowrisc.org> wrote: > On 14 November 2017 at 16:03, Alex Bradbury <asb at lowrisc.org> wrote: >> Dear list, >> >> At the RISC-V BoF at the LLVM Dev Meeting and the longer working >> session the day after, those of us working on RISC-V with LLVM decided >> it would be worthwhile to schedule regular

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 19:55, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2020, at 5:00 AM, Alex Bradbury <asb at lowrisc.org> wrote: > >> This all makes sense to me. > > > > That's correct, thanks for the feedback. > > > > I do like the idea from James of having the compiler always spit out a > > note

As you will have seen from previous postings, I've been working on upstream LLVM support for the RISC-V instruction set architecture. The initial RFC <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-August/103748.html> provides a good overview of my approach. Thanks to funding from a third party, I've recently been able to return to this effort as my main focus. Now feels like a good