search for: harrop

On Nov 19, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > >> In this case, the assertion that LLVM is slow is correct: it's >> definitely slower than a non-optimizing compiler. > > I'm *very* surprised by this and will test it myself... Compared to a compiler in the same category as PCC, whose pinnacle of op...

On Thursday 19 November 2009 19:48:18 Owen Anderson wrote: > On Nov 19, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > >> In this case, the assertion that LLVM is slow is correct: it's > >> definitely slower than a non-optimizing compiler. > > > > I'm *very* surprised by this and will test it myself... I've tested it and LLVM is indeed 2x slower to compile, althou...

...passing pointers to structs. However, the GEP instruction 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

On 04/01/2010, at 3:01 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Monday 04 January 2010 01:12:55 Simon Harris wrote: >> I'm investigating "improving" the TCO facilities in LLVM to provide for >> "hard" tail calls. Specifically, this would involve extending the existing >> implementation to discard the sta...

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 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 what tail > > calls LLVM is not currently eliminating that you plan to eliminate? > > Mutual recursion for a start: >...

On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: >> Does anyone actually using it? > > Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. Ok, that's all I need to know. > >> I'd prefer to just remove it to clean up the implementation if...

...be a high-level VM specifically for dynamic languages 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 Monday 10 December 2007 23:52, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On 2007-12-10, at 18:28, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Incidentally, should more OCaml stuff beyond the bindings be part of > > LLVM or would it be better to fork them into a separate project > > Can you be more specific than "stuff"? I'm thinking of a library that compiles an AST represented by an OCaml data...

On Thursday 14 February 2008 16:33:25 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Does CLang use a suitable intermediate representation for this to be > > possible? > > The higher level IR that clang uses is basically a C AST. This interface > is under constant flux though. If you wanted to do this, it would be > very reasonable to just cons...

On Saturday 06 February 2010 02:42:47 Evan Cheng wrote: > On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: > >> Does anyone actually using it? > > > > Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. > > Ok, that's all I need to know. > > >> I'd prefer to just remove it to...

...t wasn't necessary, and the malloc > 'instruction' didn't support 64-bit targets. BTW, what is the state of having to index into structs using i32 and not i64 even on a 64-bit platform? Is that due to be changed as well or is there some reason for requiring an i32? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

...uspect the JVM is using alias information to perform 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

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-...

.... *) add_cfg_simplification pm; add_memory_to_register_promotion pm; and then I apply "PassManager.run_function" to every function after it is validated. Any idea what I might be doing wrong? Has anyone else got this functionality giving performance boosts from OCaml? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

...e type unit in ML, so it conveys no information and can be returned as anything). That makes me think this has been a bug in LLVM rather than in my own code. I'm using LLVM 2.6. Anyone recognise this as a bug in TCO fixed since then or should I try to boil it down and submit it? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

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...

On Tuesday 16 June 2009 15:44:04 Aaron Gray wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > >Even if this puts LLVM at an unfair disadvantage, I think you will find > >that > >LLVM will thrash MLton's current x86 backend anyway. > > > >I did some benchmarking on HLVM and found that it was often several times > >faster than OCaml when the GC...

...m I calling it incorrectly or is this something that can be optimized in the OCaml bindings? Secondly, I happened to notice that JIT compiled code executed on the fly does not read from the stdin of the host OCaml program although it can write to stdout. Is this a bug? Many thanks, -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

Does LLVM hoist bounds checks out of inner loops? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e