search for: ffconsultancy

On Tuesday 16 February 2010 03:51:00 Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > Does anyone know if there is any realistic project using LLVM-OCaml > Bindings? I've written a VM in OCaml built upon LLVM using LLVM's OCaml bindings: http://www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/hlvm/ There are at least two other significant users of LLVM's OCaml bindings, AFAIK. > How is the performance? Performance of the bindings? Fine. My only gripe with LLVM's OCaml bindings is the way an error caught on the LLVM side causes my program to die in a way that...

Is there a tool to spit LLVM's IR out in a more machine-friendly syntax like XML? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 16 February 2010 03:51:00 Jianzhou Zhao wrote: >> Does anyone know if there is any realistic project using LLVM-OCaml >> Bindings? > > I've written a VM in OCaml built upon LLVM using LLVM's OCaml bindings: > >  http://www.ffconsultancy...

Attached are updated LLVM-OCaml Bindings Tutorial from Chris Wailes. (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-April/021804.html) We changed them to work with the latest APIs(LLVM2.6 and the latest LLVM from SVN). Does anyone know if there is any realistic project using LLVM-OCaml Bindings? How is the performance? Jianzhou -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

...rform optimizations that LLVM and llvm-gcc probably do not do. I am not sure what causes the performance discrepancy on LU. Perhaps the JVM is generating SSE instructions. Does llvm-gcc generate SSE instructions under any circumstances? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

...sday 24 February 2010 03:58:03 Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > I think LLVM OCaml bindings do not support JIT too much. Can you elaborate on this? Several major projects are using OCaml's LLVM bindings to execute non-trivial code via JIT. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

Has anyone begun collating data structures and algorithms written in LLVM's IL? I am just considering how to implement my first GC and it would help enormously if I could just pull in a concurrent queue written in IL, for example. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

...nguages and this post indicates that it was integrated into the LLVM project last year: http://www.nabble.com/NEWS:-HLVM-merges-with-LLVM-td9627113.html But I cannot find any code in LLVM that looks like it would have come from HLVM. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 19:19, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > Is there a tool to spit LLVM's IR out in a more machine-friendly syntax like > XML? > It seems like the correct, if unhelpful, answer to that is bitcode, which is far more machine-friendly (by my definition) than XML. What's your eventual goal?

...hing special for tail calls (although neither does the java compiler). LLVM types are translated to their equivalent java primitive type (or currently it raises an assertion if there is no equivalent type). -- David Roberts http://da.vidr.cc/ On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 02:56, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Friday 27 November 2009 05:55:59 David Roberts wrote: >> > If you translate to a big array of memory and index into it, how is it >> > better than the mips -> java compiler? >> >> Yes, it is similar to the mips to java compiler in that regard,...

On Saturday 31 January 2009 03:42:04 Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst > > tweaking the command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 > > flag > > The -msse3 flag? Does the -msse2 flag have a similar effect? Yes: $ llvm-gcc -Wall -lm -O3 -msse2...

...double x= Random_nextDouble(R); double y= Random_nextDouble(R); if ( x*x + y*y <= 1.0) under_curve ++; } Random_delete(R); return ((double) under_curve / Num_samples) * 4.0; } -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

...o have HLVM use them "under the hood" for some things but I cannot see all of the operations that I was expecting (e.g. dot product) and am not sure what works when (e.g. "Not all targets support all types however."). -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

This is not a quite fair comparison. Other virtual machines must be doing garbage collection, while LLVM, as it is using C code, it is taking advantage of memory allocation by hand. On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark the > performance of various VMs using the SciMark2 benchmark on an 8x 2.1GHz > 64-bit Opteron and I have published the results here: > > http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/mono-22...

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Monday 04 January 2010 03:33:06 Simon Harris wrote: >> On 04/01/2010, at 3:01 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: >> > I am certainly interested in tail calls because my HLVM project relies >> > upon LLVM's tail call elimination. However, I do not understand wha...

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > Thanks for the clarification. That makes a lot more sense! > > LLVM's support for structs is wonderful but I don't think they can be > called "first-class structs" until all such arbitrary restrictions have been > removed, even though the workaroun...

...h benchmark some specification suite of C programs on GCC, LLVM-GCC, and CLANG? The only stuff I have seen so far are some bar charts in a few LLVM presentations, would be nice to have something a little more comprehensive. Cheers, Granville On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 00:43:58 David Greene wrote: > > But hey, we use LLVM to do it! > > Hello David, > > I just noticed your post and was wondering what Cray are doing with LLVM? > Are > you using it in production? > > I am trying to keep an ey...

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 24 February 2010 03:58:03 Jianzhou Zhao wrote: >> I think LLVM OCaml bindings do not support JIT too much. > > Can you elaborate on this? I meant the OCaml bindings let OCaml call existing C++ LLVM routines, such as creating an execution engine, JIT-ing...

...struction only handles pointer types. So I do not understand how you will be able to extract the fields of a struct when it is received as a value type. Will the GEP instruction be altered so that it can be applied to structs directly? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

...and even it has more restrictions than LLVM does. > > The performance of tail calls on LLVM is a minor concern for me and I would > appreciate it being optimized but certainly not at the cost of correctness. > > -- > Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. > http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev