similar to: BSD magazine is out 05/2010!

The newest issue of BSD Magazine is already available for free on our website BSDmag.org! http://bsdmag.org/magazine/1049-hosting-bsd a.. Modern FreeBSD Install All these years sysinstall(8) was helping us to install FreeBSD with most needed options. Slawomir Wojtczak (vermaden) a.. X11 without dbus/hald and with three kings FreeBSD Handbook suggests (check section 5.4.2 Configuring X11),

a.. http://bsdmag.org/magazine/1114-bsd-firewalls a.. Introduction to NanoBSD NanoBSD is a tool developed by Poul-Henning Kamp phk@FreeBSD.org. It creates a FreeBSD system image for embedded applications, suitable for use on a Compact Flash card (or other mass storage medium). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - DANIEL GERZO a.. Feature:

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:09 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> >> wrote: >> > I'm seeing this too. CC'ing the author ubsan stuff. >> > >> >

I use latest cmake+ninja which are built from latest sources. ================================= > cmake --version cmake version 2.8.9.20121011-g2876 ================================= -- mahesha On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I am first time trying build CLANG+LLVM using cmake+ninja build > system. I updated all

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > I'm seeing this too. CC'ing the author ubsan stuff. > > Richard, I know you were OK with only supporting Clang-bootstraps, but I > don't think that's terribly viable here. Just out of curiosity - why isn't that viable? I'd sort of hope to treat optional sanitizer runtimes

Hello all, This could be a naive question, but still asking it here because of my limited knowledge on clang/llvm infrastructure. *Question:* When I pass `-v save-temps` options to clang++, I was expecting to see the command line for both `opt` and `llc` in the expanded command line output, but, I don't see it. What am I missing? *Clang++ Command Line:* clang++ -v -save-temps hello.cpp

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:09 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > I'm seeing this too. CC'ing the author ubsan stuff. > > > > Richard, I know you were OK with only supporting Clang-bootstraps, but I > > don't think that's terribly viable

I'm seeing this too. CC'ing the author ubsan stuff. Richard, I know you were OK with only supporting Clang-bootstraps, but I don't think that's terribly viable here. We should be able to build ubsan's runtime with standards conforming code unless there is some fairly extreme reason not to... On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Eli, Attached is the next patch in the line. This patch (class_pragma_omp_handler_support.patch) contains the implementation of the class "class PragmaOmpHandler". I also attached the test case (openmp_syntax_test.c). This test case is actually to test the syntactically legal simple OpenMP constructs. However, we can *really* test it only after submitting the next two patches - one

Hi All, I am first time trying build CLANG+LLVM using cmake+ninja build system. I updated all my CLANG+LLVM sources to current trunk, and I successfully built it using classic *make* build system. But, trying to build the same with cmake+ninja build system resulting in following build failures for compiler-rt sources. Am I missing something basics here? ==================== cmake command used:

Hi Eli, Attached zipped file, named, "fopenmp_option_support.tar.gz" contains the first patch, along with relevant *test case*. This patch is to support the option "-fopenmp" option in Clang. Following files are changed in this patch. Please start going through this patch, and let me know comments. Meanwhile, I will prepare next patch.

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 10/13/2012 04:38 AM, Mahesha HS wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>

Let's forget about my malformed IR if it is adding additional confusion here. I mentioned it here to ease the conversation, but if it is causing confusion rather than making the discussion flow easier, then we better ignore it. The whole triggering point for this email initiative is - one of the applications is crashing with the stack trace that I mentioned earlier. The crash is during the

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Eli and Others >> >> In response to your feedback, I have taken care of all your review comments >> - I removed clangOMP.a >> and moved the implementation of "class

Hello Duncan Sands, >From your reply, what I can understand is that there is no any new OPENMP specific instructions introduced into LLVM IR as a part of DragonEgg project since GCC has already done the job of lowering OpenMP directives into GOMP runtime library calls at LOW GIMPLE IR level. Now, it throws up following questions. 1. Am I correct that DragoEgg should logically supports

Hi Eli and Others In response to your feedback, I have taken care of all your review comments - I removed clangOMP.a and moved the implementation of "class OmpPragmaHandler" to "clangLex.a". The attached zipped file - namely - 'OpenMP_support_in_Clang.tar.gz' contains all the implemented "patches" along with *newly* added source files. Another attached text

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> On 10/13/2012 04:38 AM, Mahesha HS wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 10,

I am bit confused - `unit` must be present for definitions, and `optimized ` is also a `definition`, so, `unit` must be present for `optimized ` too. Am I right? Mahesha On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:14 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > definition and optimized are orthogonal (a function could be both, or > neither) - one says this DISubprogram describes a function

On 10/13/2012 04:38 AM, Mahesha HS wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Eli and Others >>> >>> In response to your feedback, I have taken care of all your review comments >>> - I removed clangOMP.a

Hi David If you look at line https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp#L1160 there is IR verification which asserts that only in case of `spFlags = DISPFlagDefinition`, the compilation unit (`unit` field) should be present. Otherwise, it should *not* be present. In the crash case, `spFlags = DISPFlagOptimized`. So, I guess, `unit` field should *not* be present,