search for: native_function

...u may be able to cheaply eliminate 'enough' overhead for your needs without much work. All of the above are relatively simple (should be doable in a day, modulo patch review). For the very best performance, you really want to call the JIT'd function directly—e.g., let nf = native_function name m where native_function has type string -> Llvm.module -> 'a and nf has some functional type, like int -> int -> int. However, this is subject to the quirks and complexities of the Ocaml FFI (e.g., overflow arguments passed in a global array on x86, totally nonstandard...

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

...@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +// makeswf -v 7 -r 1 -o native-run-7.swf native-run.as + +trace ("Running all native functions to find crashes"); +trace ("Using undefined, movieclip, object and number as this"); + +// FIXME: List is not complete, check when implemting new native functions +var native_functions = [ + [4,0], [4,1], [5,0], [5,1], [11,0], [100,0], [100,1], [100,2], [100,3], + [100,5], [101,0], [101,1], [101,10], [101,11], [101,12], [101,2], [101,3], + [101,4], [101,5], [101,6], [101,7], [101,8], [103,0], [103,1], [103,10], + [103,11], [103,12], [103,128], [103,13], [103,14], [103,15], [...