search for: llmodule

...n to be released 2.7. Does anyone need any > other functions exposed before the code freeze on the 7th? Oh hey... I remember now. There is one thing I probably won't get around to doing myself until after the code freeze. (* Llvm_bitwriter *) val output_bitcode: out_channel -> Llvm.llmodule -> unit It would, of course, be awesome if you could get that into the 2.7 train. — j h woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org> http://jhw.vox.com/

I've pretty much finished exposing all I wanted to llvm-c and the ocaml bindings for the soon to be released 2.7. Does anyone need any other functions exposed before the code freeze on the 7th?

...did the vast majority of the bindings, so they deserve most of the praise. I believe there are techniques for walking over the CFG. You can load up code using Llvm_bitreader, use things like Llvm.iter_globals, Llvm.iter_functions, and Llvm.iter_instrs to walk over the module, and write out a new llmodule using Llvm_bitwriter. Is there something more specific you want to do? On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Ranjit Jhala <jhala at cs.ucsd.edu> wrote: > Hi Erick -- > > many thanks for writing the ocaml bindings and tutorial for LLVM ! > > I had a question: i see there are binding...

Hello Jianzhou, On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > Does 2.8 release plan to change anything in Ocaml bindings? > http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#whatsnew does not list any > relevant features. I usually wait until around nowish before a release to sync llvm-c and the ocaml bindings. I'll start the process.

Hi, Does 2.8 release plan to change anything in Ocaml bindings? http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#whatsnew does not list any relevant features. 2.7 added 'operand' that can access each operand from a value. external operand : llvalue -> int -> llvalue = "llvm_operand" Does this binding also expose a primitive to return how many operands a given value has? I need

On Feb 18, 2010, at 12:51, Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > > I'm in the process of finishing up the ocaml llvm bindings, and I had > some last minute questions before we code freeze: > > 1. What version of ocaml is everyone using, and how old of an ocaml > version do you need to support? Still using OCaml 3.11.1, but will but upgrading to OCaml 3.11.2 around the same time as the

...y of the bindings, so they deserve most of the > praise. I believe there are techniques for walking over the CFG. You > can load up code using Llvm_bitreader, use things like > Llvm.iter_globals, Llvm.iter_functions, and Llvm.iter_instrs to walk > over the module, and write out a new llmodule using Llvm_bitwriter. Is > there something more specific you want to do? > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Ranjit Jhala <jhala at cs.ucsd.edu> wrote: >> Hi Erick -- >> >> many thanks for writing the ocaml bindings and tutorial for LLVM ! >> >> I had a...

For all LLVM users out there: what kinds of errors do you spend the most time debugging? On Saturday 15 March 2008 08:03:47 Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > Does this sound like it could work, or am I missing something? Excellent idea. You might also consider building a data structure on the OCaml side that is equivalent to the LLVM code: module Op = struct type int_op = [ `IAdd | ... ]

On Sunday 25 November 2007 20:01, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On Nov 25, 2007, at 11:49, Jon Harrop wrote: > > On Sunday 25 November 2007 12:23, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> If ocamlc is on your path, then 'configure; make; make install' > >> should install the bindings in your ocaml lib. > > > > Right. I hadn't noticed they were already installed

I'm in the process of finishing up the ocaml llvm bindings, and I had some last minute questions before we code freeze: 1. What version of ocaml is everyone using, and how old of an ocaml version do you need to support? 2. Would it be alright if I renamed some functions? Module providers are being removed for 2.7. I can keep the old functions around, but I'd prefer to keep the API clean.

On Nov 25, 2007, at 11:49, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Sunday 25 November 2007 12:23, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> If ocamlc is on your path, then 'configure; make; make install' >> should install the bindings in your ocaml lib. > > Right. I hadn't noticed they were already installed after llvm "make > install" in: > > /usr/local/lib/ocaml/

I was talking to Gordon on #llvm earlier, and he challenged me with coming up with a way to improve the ocaml binding's type safety. We can't go letting haskell beat us now, can we? I think I got an easy solution with phantom types. For those who don't know what the problem is, the ocaml bindings share one type between whole class branches (like values). This means we need to downcast