| |||||||||||||
Distributions looking at LLVMDistributions looking at LLVMPosted Mar 24, 2012 8:41 UTC (Sat) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616)In reply to: Distributions looking at LLVM by mstefani Parent article: Distributions looking at LLVM
but that means that the actual code optimization/generation part (llvm) is the same between clang and his sparse based work, so if the former can produce a working kernel (and has been able to do so for quite some time now) then his tool should be able to as well. sure, there're some gcc/gas features that clang/llvm don't have yet but they can be patched around on the linux side (my diff is about 60kB, 60 files changed, 258 insertions(+), 213 deletions(-)).
(Log in to post comments)
Distributions looking at LLVM Posted Mar 24, 2012 18:54 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Instead of speculating, you can just send a email and coordinate.
Distributions looking at LLVM Posted Mar 24, 2012 21:45 UTC (Sat) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616) [Link]
err, i'm not interested in sparse ;).
Distributions looking at LLVM Posted Mar 25, 2012 1:09 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
You were wondering what he was doing in your first comment in this thread. So I assumed you were interested in the answer.
Distributions looking at LLVM Posted Mar 25, 2012 15:12 UTC (Sun) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616) [Link]
does rhetorical question mean anything to you? :P obviously if clang/llvm work fine (for me) then the problems must be somewhere else. now that it turned out to be the sparse/llvm interface, i consider the matter settled.
|
|||||||||||||