search for: ragan

Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but it seems that a number of core instructions—I'm specifically running in to `atomicrmw`, `fence`, and `cmpxchg` at the moment—cannot be constructed from the C bindings, and are therefore also inaccessible to the OCaml bindings. There are opcodes for each of these in the llvm-c/Core.h, but there seems to be no way to construct them. Is there

How soon would I need to submit a patch for this for it to have a comfortable shot at making it into the 3.2 release? On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:05 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote: > > On Sep 14, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley <jrk at csail.mit.edu> wrote: > >> Is there a reason these should be omitted? > > Not in particular. Things are added to the C API as needed and usually on demand. > > -eric

...s a new column to the data set when you find the fitted values. So having to fight with R just to do something I used to routimely do has made me think of turning back to the dark side. I hope I have just missed something trival in all the help files I have been looking through. Thanks, -- Robi Ragan Graduate Student Department of Economics Department of Political Science The University of Georgia

On May 28, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley wrote: > In the current trunk, System/Atomic.[h,cpp] define void > llvm::sys::MemoryFence(). This conflicts with the MemoryFence macro in > <windows.h> and (since it's a preprocessor macro, and not a scoped > function definition) causes the sys::MemoryFence definition...

I finally got around to adding these. The patch is posted in a pull request on my copy of llvm.git: https://github.com/jrk/llvm/pull/3 and a simple test with OCaml is here: https://gist.github.com/3948460 Feedback welcome. On Sep 14, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley <jrk at csail.mit.edu> wrote: > Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but it seems that a > number of core instructions—I'm specifically running in to > `atomicrmw`, `fence`, and `cmpxchg` at the moment—cannot be > constructed from the C bindings, and are th...

Yes, indeed. On May 28, 10:41 pm, Owen Anderson <resis... at mac.com> wrote: > > Wait, it defines MemoryFence() AND MemoryBarrier()?? > > Sheesh, they had to take all the reasonable names.  :-/

On Jun 1, 2009, at 11:17 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley wrote: > Yes, indeed. Are they macros or functions? If macros, why not just #undef them at the top of Atomics.h? -Chris > > > On May 28, 10:41 pm, Owen Anderson <resis... at mac.com> wrote: >> >> Wait, it defines MemoryFence() AND MemoryBarrier()?? >&g...

What is the current state of the JIT on Windows x64? I have noticed intermittent conversation about past incompatibility due to the calling convention idiosyncrasies, as well as some suggestion from last fall that it was targeted for a fix in the 2.5 timeframe, but see no definitive conclusion. Is this working in 2.5, in trunk, or likely to be in trunk soon?

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley<jrk at csail.mit.edu> wrote: > What is the current state of the JIT on Windows x64? Broken; at the very least, there's http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3739 . -Eli

Jonathan Ragan-Kelley <katokop1 <at> gmail.com> writes: > > Slightly off-topic, but I imagine this crowd must have some experience > using Xcode 4 for projects linking to LLVM. I've actually started > using Xcode 4 as an IDE for C/C++ development thanks to the vastly > improved co...

I can't seem to find reference to intrinsics, beyond the is_intrinsic function. I am building a backend which needs to perform some target-specific code-generation (for SSE, AVX, and NEON), and intrinsics are the standard path in the C++ API.

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley <jrk at csail.mit.edu>wrote: > I can't seem to find reference to intrinsics, beyond the is_intrinsic > function. > > I am building a backend which needs to perform some target-specific > code-generation (for SSE, AVX, and NEON), and intrinsics are the > standard...

On Sep 14, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley <jrk at csail.mit.edu> wrote: > Is there a reason these should be omitted? Not in particular. Things are added to the C API as needed and usually on demand. -eric

Slightly off-topic, but I imagine this crowd must have some experience using Xcode 4 for projects linking to LLVM. I've actually started using Xcode 4 as an IDE for C/C++ development thanks to the vastly improved code analysis-based tools it's inherited largely thanks to LLVM. But, ironically, I am particularly struggling to get the tools to parse and analyze LLVM (as a client, not for

On 28.12.2011, at 19:02, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley wrote: > Building on OS X 10.7.1 with the standard toolchain, I have seen the > following linker warnings going back a number of versions in trunk > whenever I build an executable linked with LLVM: > > ld: warning: direct access in llvm::fouts() to global weak > sy...

This question is specifically motivated by the practical constraints of NVVM, but I don't know anywhere better to ask (hopefully, e.g., @jholewinski is still following), and I believe it concerns general LLVM issues: NVIDIA's libNVVM is built on LLVM 3.2. This means its bitcode and LL text parsers are from that generation. It's interface calls for adding modules as either bitcode

Thanks, all. I didn’t realize a 7.0 RC was public and changed to 3.4—I will go down that road for now, though I’ll probably also look into integrating variants of the SPIR converter in the future. Another possibility is to skip libnvvm altogether and use LLVM's NVPTX target.  This is of course harder since you have to configure the passes yourself instead of just calling a few C

Building on OS X 10.7.1 with the standard toolchain, I have seen the following linker warnings going back a number of versions in trunk whenever I build an executable linked with LLVM: ld: warning: direct access in llvm::fouts() to global weak symbol llvm::formatted_raw_ostream::~formatted_raw_ostream() means the weak symbol cannot be overridden at runtime. This was likely caused by

Since SPIR can be (easily) transformed to NVVM IR at least for me this helps a lot. Thank you Tobias. -MH On January 12, 2015, Tobias Grosser <tgrosser at inf.ethz.ch> wrote: > On 12.01.2015 05:48, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley wrote: > > This question is specifically motivated by the practical constraints of > > NVVM, but I don't know anywhere better to ask (hopefully, e.g., > > @jholewinski is still following), and I believe it concerns general LLVM > > issues: > > > > NVI...

The OCaml bindings have been broken in trunk for a while. I chased it down to the addition of the Half type (rev 146786) not being reflected in the OCaml enums, causing mysterious type checking to break in the middle of the LLVM stack when using code generated from OCaml. The fix was trivial: https://github.com/jrk/llvm/pull/1/files -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment