search for: llvm_value_set_nam

...f interface should such an interface provide? The simplest > is "pass-in-a-string-to-compile", but that's rather crude. To me, the best interface is the most simple: I would suggest just wrapping the llvm classes and methods you need with simple functions, e.g. llvm_function_new/llvm_value_set_name/llvm_executionengine_run_function, etc. If kept simple, standardized, and generic, I think it would be very useful to people (even if incomplete). This would allow others to build on it, and we could 'ship' it as a standard llvm library. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://ll...

> So as it stands, one should think of out JIT as something akin to the > early Java JITs: one function at a time and only one compile per > function. This is extremely primative by modern JIT standards, where a > JIT will do profiling, find hot functions and reoptimize them, > reoptimize functions when more information about the call tree is > available, have several levels of

> llvm_function_new/llvm_value_set_name/llvm_executionengine_run_function, > etc. > > If kept simple, standardized, and generic, I think it would be very useful > to people (even if incomplete). This would allow others to build on it, > and we could 'ship' it as a standard llvm library. It looks like my inte...

On May 9, Chris Lattner wrote: > To me, the best interface is the most simple: I would suggest just > wrapping the llvm classes and methods you need with simple functions, e.g. > > llvm_function_new/llvm_value_set_name/llvm_executionengine_run_function, > etc. > > If kept simple, standardized, and generic, I think it would be very useful > to people (even if incomplete). This would allow others to build on it, > and we could 'ship' it as a standard llvm library. Well, it seems that t...

On Thu, 12 May 2005, Alexander Friedman wrote: >> llvm_function_new/llvm_value_set_name/llvm_executionengine_run_function, >> etc. >> >> If kept simple, standardized, and generic, I think it would be very useful >> to people (even if incomplete). This would allow others to build on it, >> and we could 'ship' it as a standard llvm library. > &...