similar to: How about add webassembly/wasi support in llvm-libc.

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 3000 matches similar to: "How about add webassembly/wasi support in llvm-libc."

2020 Sep 23
1
[libc-dev] How about add webassembly/wasi support in llvm-libc.
Somehow I wish not all parts of a libc but parts that can be provided without a JavaScript wrapper for .wasm can be provided from llvm's libc (leaving a stab implementation for the rest like file system). I've put together a minimal libc on [1] so using a 26kb .wasm binary file one can decode both PNG and JPG using this [2] simple to integrate JavaScript code, can be easily ported in other
2013 Jun 28
3
[LLVMdev] Hi, people, I propose to move Debug and Object File related headers out of Support
For example, ELF.h MachO.h and COFF.h should moved into Object directory with new name. and Dwarf.h should moved into DebugInfo directory. 2013/6/29 Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>: > Where would you like to move them? > > -eric > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:38 AM, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) > <luoyonggang at gmail.com> wrote: >> From my point of view, the
2010 Mar 22
6
[LLVMdev] Summer of Code ideas
Hi, I intend to participate in Google's Summer of Code this year, so I'd like to bounce another idea around to see what you guys think. (I posted a similar message to cfe-dev just now.) Be warned: this will shock you. It may even horrify you. 1. Implement a 16-bit x86 backend. (*Chris recoils in horror*) Yeah, I know 16-bit x86 is dead, but I find it interesting for historical purposes
2013 Jun 28
3
[LLVMdev] Hi, people, I propose to move Debug and Object File related headers out of Support
>From my point of view, the Support library should be more pure. And should not contains too much LLVM-related APIs and defines, -- 此致 礼 罗勇刚 Yours sincerely, Yonggang Luo
2013 Jun 28
0
[LLVMdev] Hi, people, I propose to move Debug and Object File related headers out of Support
Going to be interesting layering issues if you do the latter. Then you have CodeGen depending upon DebugInfo instead of just a header in Support. -eric On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:08 AM, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) <luoyonggang at gmail.com> wrote: > For example, > ELF.h MachO.h and COFF.h > should moved into Object directory with new name. > and Dwarf.h should moved into DebugInfo
2016 Jun 29
3
The clang for centos6 are need GLIBC_2.14, but we only have GLIB 2.12 by default.
Well, is that possible to include libstdc++4.7 into llvm? On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry if I was unclear, I have no problems building clang against a newer > gcc for my own purpose. But it doesn't make sense to provide a release > binary for clang that's hosted on llvm.org that's ostensibly for >
2016 Nov 15
2
Dwarf.h & Dwarf.def & Dwarf.cpp doesn't belong to Supoort, belogns to DebugInfo.
-- 此致 礼 罗勇刚 Yours sincerely, Yonggang Luo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161115/80fd3c17/attachment.html>
2016 Jun 28
2
The clang for centos6 are need GLIBC_2.14, but we only have GLIB 2.12 by default.
[root at localhost clang+llvm-3.8.0-linux-x86_64-centos6]# cd bin [root at localhost bin]# ./clang ./clang: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found (required by ./clang) ./clang: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by ./clang) ./clang: /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.14' not found (required by ./clang) ./clang: /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6:
2016 Jun 29
0
The clang for centos6 are need GLIBC_2.14, but we only have GLIB 2.12 by default.
It is possible to statically link against libstdc++, yes. I don't quite know all the pieces to the recipe in order to get that to work. It would require changes to the release script in order to get those configuration changes all the way through the third phase build. I don't believe any other tarball release does this, so it would at least be an unconventional release. On Wed, Jun
2013 Oct 19
2
[LLVMdev] Feature request for include llvm-mc in llvm.org/builds
2013/10/19 Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>: > On 19 October 2013 06:01, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) <luoyonggang at gmail.com> wrote: >> I found that access llvm-mc from clang driver is impossible, and I >> want to use llvm-mc to compile assembly files, how to do that? > > Try "clang -integrated-as -c test.s" Thank you very much, I use the
2009 Aug 06
1
[LLVMdev] MSVC can't Inlcude *.inc files properly
I means visual studio c++ 2008, do you build clang+llvm with .sln files, and these files are generated by cmake? I do of that. And because vs c++ can't recognize path such a:/filepath/.. Properlyn it's recognized as a:/filepath So we need change /.. to /../ or /../. 2009/8/6, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org>: > I don't understand this problem, I have built clang on
2016 Jun 28
2
The clang for centos6 are need GLIBC_2.14, but we only have GLIB 2.12 by default.
Hell, Brian, I found a way to install Gcc 5.3 on CentOS 6 without the need to building it from source. You may try it on CentOS 6.0 That's makes clang/llvm won't depends on the newer version of glibc 2.14 The instruction: vim /etc/yum.repos.d/llvm.repo The content: ``` [sclo] name=SCLO baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6/sclo/x86_64/rh/ gpgcheck=0 enabled=1 ``` Installation step:
2016 Jun 28
3
The clang for centos6 are need GLIBC_2.14, but we only have GLIB 2.12 by default.
So CentOS before 6.7 is not an option after all? Is that possible to use clang on CentOS 6.6 and before? On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, I believe it was built against centos 6.7. I wanted to build it > against an older release but couldn't quite bootstrap it without newer > libstdc++. > > Sorry, it would be clearer
2013 Jun 28
0
[LLVMdev] Hi, people, I propose to move Debug and Object File related headers out of Support
Where would you like to move them? -eric On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:38 AM, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) <luoyonggang at gmail.com> wrote: > From my point of view, the Support library should be more pure. And > should not contains > too much LLVM-related APIs and defines, > -- > 此致 > 礼 > 罗勇刚 > Yours > sincerely, > Yonggang Luo > >
2009 Oct 05
2
[LLVMdev] Hi, everyone, fail on building c-index-test
Is there anyone get the time to apply this patch? 2009/10/2, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com>: > > On Oct 1, 2009, at 6:36 AM, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) wrote: > >> At the first glance, it's coming with that c-index-test is just >> only containing c files (without cpp(cxx,c++) files). >> >> So cmake recognize it as pure C project, >> and so it's
2010 May 05
2
[LLVMdev] Why llvm function name is different with . and ..
declare i8 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i8.p0i8( i8* <ptr>, i8 <delta> ) declare i16 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i16.p0i16( i16* <ptr>, i16 <delta> ) declare i32 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i32.p0i32( i32* <ptr>, i32 <delta> ) declare i64 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i64.p0i64( i64* <ptr>, i64 <delta> ) declare i8 @llvm.atomic.load.min.i8.p0i8( i8* <ptr>, i8
2016 Jun 28
0
The clang for centos6 are need GLIBC_2.14, but we only have GLIB 2.12 by default.
Yes, I believe it was built against centos 6.7. I wanted to build it against an older release but couldn't quite bootstrap it without newer libstdc++. Sorry, it would be clearer if I'd have made the package name include "centos6.7". On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:43 AM, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > wrote: > [root at localhost
2010 May 09
2
[LLVMdev] Dead ELFRelocation.h file in include\llvm\CodeGen
-- 此致 礼 罗勇刚 Yours sincerely, Yonggang Luo
2013 Jun 21
1
[LLVMdev] Patch for the fact that all llvm python scripts are python 2.x compatible.
720beaedce6f19c81156fe20168f85989a8db53d CMakeLists.txt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/CMakeLists.txt b/CMakeLists.txt index bb70f15..e327427 100644 --- a/CMakeLists.txt +++ b/CMakeLists.txt @@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ set(LLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE "${LLVM_HOST_TRIPLE}" CACHE STRING set(TARGET_TRIPLE "${LLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE}")
2016 Jun 28
0
The clang for centos6 are need GLIBC_2.14, but we only have GLIB 2.12 by default.
Sorry if I was unclear, I have no problems building clang against a newer gcc for my own purpose. But it doesn't make sense to provide a release binary for clang that's hosted on llvm.org that's ostensibly for "centos6" when it would really be bound to "centos6 plus the SCLO mirror which has the dependency for a newer libstdc++". The glibc 2.14 dependency is a