search for: gcjx

First I'd like to let you know I've started working on porting gcjx to llvm. Some other intrested people may help but I've just started the project. My first question is I'm porting gcjx over to use the llvm build system I've successfully created a number of libraries but gcjx uses a number of sub directories for its source and I'd like the .o file...

...could add it once you've figured out the details. Note that libtool can automatically rip apart archives and recombine them into larger libraries. Read up on libtool for further information. Reid. Mike Emmel wrote: > First I'd like to let you know I've started working on porting gcjx to llvm. > Some other intrested people may help but I've just started the project. > > My first question is I'm porting gcjx over to use the llvm build > system I've successfully created a number of libraries but gcjx uses a > number of sub directories for its source and...

Hi all I'm writing a direct llvm backend for gcjx a new java fronted for gcc. I'm now ready to tackle creating the structures to represnt classes I read the gcc 4.0 patches and it seems that the llvm struct is padded and aligned using the info from the gcc tree. In my case I don't have this information. I'm willing to intially let llv...

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Mike Emmel wrote: > Hi all I'm writing a direct llvm backend for gcjx a new java fronted for gcc. Great! > I'm now ready to tackle creating the structures to represnt classes I > read the gcc 4.0 patches and it seems that the llvm struct is padded > and aligned using the info from the gcc tree. Yes. > In my case I don't have this information....

Hi Mike, hope you are doing well with the llvm gcjx backend. I am currently writing an llvm backend for a C like language for tracing (like D in dtrace). I am very interested in this area. Do you currently put your work in a repository? (maybe as Tom suggested gcjx.sf.net would be an easy start - since it would not require gcc committer status). I a...

On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 09:43 -0500, Archie Cobbs wrote: > Hi, > > I'm just learning about LLVM (really interesting) and have some newbie > questions. Feel free to ignore or disparage them if they're inappropriate :-) No worries. > > My area of interest is using LLVM in a Java JVM setting. These are > just some random questions relating to that... > > 1. What

Hi, I'm just learning about LLVM (really interesting) and have some newbie questions. Feel free to ignore or disparage them if they're inappropriate :-) My area of interest is using LLVM in a Java JVM setting. These are just some random questions relating to that... 1. What is the status of the LLVM+Java effort? Is it GCJ-specific? Is there a web page? I found one link via google

On 12/20/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Mike Emmel wrote: > > Hi all I'm writing a direct llvm backend for gcjx a new java fronted for gcc. > > Great! > > > I'm now ready to tackle creating the structures to represnt classes I > > read the gcc 4.0 patches and it seems that the llvm struct is padded > > and aligned using the info from the gcc tree. > > Yes. > > >...

Reid Spencer wrote: >> 1. What is the status of the LLVM+Java effort? > > Incomplete but significant progress has been made. Misha Brukman can > tell you more. >> Is it GCJ-specific? > > No, it implements its own Java compiler and bytecode translator. Has it been hooked up to a JVM? If so, how and which ones? Thanks for your other answers re annotations and memory

This is a interesting thread. I think this would also help with compiling scripting languages such as JavaScript/Python etc. We could keep the high level meta data and runtime binding info as language specific bytecode in the file and just have the parts that are easy to represent as compileable in the main object sections. There is no intrinsic reason for all the runtime type information to get

Hi Reid, Reid Spencer schrieb: > I have some thoughts on this too .. > Great! > On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 19:56 +0100, Jakob Praher wrote: > >>I get you 100 % here. But as you say later in the mail, many information >>is done by some runtime std::map<Value*,foo> stuff. Which is really >>handy at runtime, but I *had* serialization in mind when I was thinking