search for: ffis

...classes so that the IR API can be used directly from managed > languages. LLVM has C bindings which you should be able to P/Invoke straightforwardly. A rational managed API could be built atop these. Visit include/llvm-c in the source tree. These were specifically designed for use via FFIs like P/Invoke. Several bindings have been built atop the C bindings (Ocaml, Haskell, D, and Python that I know of), but only the Ocaml ones are on trunk. We would welcome additional bindings into mainline if you are inclined to contribute. These bindings are not 100% complete, but your usag...

...rfacing to the middle end against: you'll have to re-engineer the LLVM IR object model and bitcode writer in your language against: it may be harder to track changes to the IR If you go with the first option, the C bindings in include/llvm-c should help a lot, since most languages have C FFIs. The C interface was designed to require very little manual memory management, and so is fairly straightforward to talk to with most FFIs. — Gordon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080222...

Hello! I'm interested in using LLVM as a target for a compiler I've written in common lisp (SBCL). While I looked at perhaps wrapping the LLVM C++ interface, wrapping C++ in, well, anything not C++ is a pain. Someone on IRC mentioned that they didn't think I'd miss out on any functionality by directly emitting IR, but suggested I query the list. Do I miss out on any optimizations

Hi Our front end is written in a CLR language, and we're currently interacting with the middle/back-end by writing out .ll files. This was convenient to get started with, but they're getting to a "huge and unwieldy" stage now. I was wondering if anyone's attempted writing proxy/wrapper C++/CLI classes so that the IR API can be used directly from managed languages. Any

Gordon Henriksen wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On 2007-12-10, at 18:28, Jon Harrop wrote: > > >> On Monday 10 December 2007 23:14, Gordon Henriksen wrote: >> >> >>> On 2007-12-10, at 18:04, Sarah Thompson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Is it reasonable for me to hack on this, or would you rather do >>>>> it

On Jul 19, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > So, I made this proposal for what I think is a pretty good reason. There's an "unofficial" as Juergen said, policy that the C API is the stable API. There's nothing wrong with a stable C API, but that's what I'm proposing should move out of tree to where those that are most concerned

Hi Vedant, > I enjoyed reading through your EuroLLVM slides and OOPSLA paper. > Detecting the creation of contract-violating pointers is an > interesting idea, and your paper demonstrates that the checking can > be comprehensive and effective. Glad you enjoyed them. :-) > However, I have concerns about the quality of diagnostics, the > complexity of the driver, and about