On 01/20/11 12:54, Roman Divacky wrote:
ok, I sat down and implemented what Hans Ottevanger told me to do :)
http://lev.vlakno.cz/~rdivacky/clang-gprof.patch
This patch does three things:
1) emits "call .mcount" at the begining of every function body
It's not always called .mcount.
On 09/11/12 09:56, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2012-09-11 16:27, Tijl Coosemans wrote:> On 11-09-2012 16:10,
Dimitry Andric wrote:
...
Yes, maths support, specifically precision, is admittedly still one of
clang's (really llvm's) weaker points. It is currently not really a
high priority item for
s/kern/imgact_llvm.c (revision 0)
+++ sys/kern/imgact_llvm.c (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+/*-
+ * Copyright (c) 2012 Nathan Whitehorn
+ * All rights reserved.
+ *
+ * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
+ * modification, are permitted provided that the followin
On 01/07/13 08:25, David Naylor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just my 2c
>
> On Sunday, 6 January 2013 20:02:21 Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>> Having LLVM/clang in the base system lets us do some interesting things
>> that we couldn't do with GCC. One is that LLVM ships with
On 01/13/13 05:20, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:41:09PM +0100, Ed Schouten wrote:
>> Hi Kostik,
>>
>> 2013/1/7 Konstantin Belousov :
>>> I still do remember the buzz about the binary format 0xCAFEBABE, which
>>> AFAIR gained image activator support on several OSes, to be
On 01/13/13 09:13, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 08:21:37AM -0800, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>> On 01/13/13 05:20, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:41:09PM +0100, Ed Schouten wrote:
>>>> Hi Kostik,
>>>>
>>
On 08/23/13 07:26, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 23/08/2013 14:06 David Chisnall said the following:
Our gcc is from 2007. It has no C11, no C++11 support. It has bugs in its
atomic generation so you can't use it sensibly without lots of inline
assembly (which it doesn't support for newer architectur
On 08/23/13 07:30, Ian Lepore wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 12:06 +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
On 23 Aug 2013, at 11:42, Julian Elischer wrote:
no, I believe we have said that 10 would ship with clang by default. NO mention
was made about gcc being absent, and I am uncomfortable with taking t
On 08/25/13 18:41, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
>> I object. Many ports that compiles perfectly on gcc 4.2.1 can't be
>> compiled with lang/gcc. I checked this once and the number of ports
>> that require strictly gcc 4.2.1 was bigger for me then number o
On 08/30/13 00:35, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2013, at 08:18, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>> As far as I'm concerned we can even slate it for
>> "possible removal in 10.2-- if clang has proven up to the task"
> I would be happy to ship gcc, as long as:
>
> - It's explicitly marked as deprecate
This is not the right one. That is related to clang 3.4. The issue is
that clang 3.5+ require a C++11 compiler to build. GCC 4.2 is not a
C++11 compiler and so the clang build was disabled. This makes the
upgrade path when clang becomes the default compiler a little bumpy, but
that did not seem
Which compiler are you building with? Just using the normal lang/gcc
works for me without issue doing make install in lang/clang36. Are you
sure you don't have any local diffs or stale files?
-Nathan
On 03/16/15 17:18, Mark Millard wrote:
Basic context (more context details listed later):
# f
On 02/14/16 14:34, Mark Millard wrote:
clang's code base is not familiar material for me nor do I have solid
reference material for the FreeBSD TARGET_ARCH=powerpc ABI rules so
the below has my guess work involved. The following code appears to
have hard wired a global, unvarying constant (8)
13 matches
Mail list logo
