search for: jonathandeanharrop

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Jon Harrop <jonathandeanharrop at googlemail.com> wrote: > Firstly, I noticed that the execute engine is very slow, taking milliseconds > to call a JIT compiled function. Is this an inherent overhead or am I calling > it incorrectly or is this something that can be optimized in the OCaml > bindings? What is the s...

On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Jon Harrop <jonathandeanharrop at googlemail.com> wrote: > I think your new OCaml tutorials and the original C++ ones are absolutely > brilliant! Thanks Jon. I'm sorry I missed this message. Now that you've had some more experience with llvm, would you be interested in adding to the doc some performance and GC...

On Monday 31 March 2008 09:56:45 Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > The full series of the ocaml tutorial is done! You can find it here: > > http://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/ > > Please let me know if you have any comments, bugs, suggestions, and > etc. I'll send a mail to the ocaml mailing list tomorrow to drum up > some interest from the other ocaml users. I think your new OCaml

Would you then agree with me that "LLVM's garbage collection facilities, _as described in the LLVM documentation_, are too difficult to use"? On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Jon Harrop < jonathandeanharrop at googlemail.com> wrote: > Talin wrote: > > Jon wrote: > > > Talin wrote: > > > > Garbage collection is still way too difficult. > > > > > > This is completely untrue. > > > > I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree... > &...

I'm having another play with LLVM using the OCaml bindings for a forthcoming OCaml Journal article and I have a couple of remarks: Firstly, I noticed that the execute engine is very slow, taking milliseconds to call a JIT compiled function. Is this an inherent overhead or am I calling it incorrectly or is this something that can be optimized in the OCaml bindings? Secondly, I happened to

Talin wrote: > Jon wrote: > > Talin wrote: > > > Garbage collection is still way too difficult. > > > > This is completely untrue. > > I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree... I failed to get my point across. You're still talking about the difficulty of using LLVM's GC support. I was talking about circumventing it. The shadow stack HLVM uses

Hi all, I would like to implement GC for a language supporting multiple threads. There will be no shared state between threads as communication will be based on message passing. I do not care much about performance. The priority for me is to get things working. I have read LLVM guide on writing GC: http://llvm.org/docs/GarbageCollection.html. Shadow stack approach looks very promising. The

Hi Mike, On 2013-08-02 18:26, Michael Lewis wrote: > I've been working recently on a precise garbage collector which runs > alongside native code JITted by LLVM. Today marks the first time the > GC has passed its entire test suite as well as extensive soak tests in > non-trivial programs. I'm glad to hear that you solved the issues you described in your last mail. How did you

Forgive my top post but I hate Windows. J I am surprised you (Talin) say that "we know conservative collectors work" because my experience has very much been of them not working. Indeed, if you have 400Mb of allocated heap blocks on a 32-bit machine is there not a 10% chance of *each* random 32-bit int "pointing" into your heap, i.e. a false positive? I just did a simple

Hi all, I've been working recently on a precise garbage collector which runs alongside native code JITted by LLVM. Today marks the first time the GC has passed its entire test suite as well as extensive soak tests in non-trivial programs. It's been an interesting and educational process, to say the least, and I've run into quite a few things that might be useful to know for others

Comments inline. On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Jon Harrop < jonathandeanharrop at googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi Talin, > > I wrote HLVM: > > http://www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/hlvm/ > > The whole project took a few man months. HLVM provides an ML-like type > system, unboxed tuples, discriminated unions, TCO, generic printing, C FFI, > POSIX threa...

Hi Talin, I wrote HLVM: http://www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/hlvm/ The whole project took a few man months. HLVM provides an ML-like type system, unboxed tuples, discriminated unions, TCO, generic printing, C FFI, POSIX threads, mark-sweep GC and both JIT and standalone compilation. I wrote several (accurate) garbage collectors for it including a stop-the-world mark-sweep collector and they

So I've been using LLVM for about 4 years now, and I've posted a lot on this list about specific issues. What I would like to do is step back for a moment and give my "big picture" assessment of LLVM overall, particularly with respect to developing a "managed" language like Java / C# or my own language, Tart. Obviously, I feel that LLVM is the best choice out there,

Török Edwin wrote: > On 05/31/2010 10:02 AM, John Lask wrote: > > I am looking to use llvm on windows. I know there is a pre-compiled > > llvm windows distribution, but this does not seem to provide libllvm. > > The software that I am looking to use makes use of libllvm (it is unix > > based, but I would like to port it to windows). I really did not wish > > to

David Given wrote: > Are there any standalone accurate garbage collectors that I could use in my > project, rather than having to write me own (or use libgc, which is what I'm > doing now)? Garbage collectors are subtle and very tricky and I really don't want > to have to do one myself, as I know I'll just get it wrong. On the contrary, writing your own GC is both easy and