similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM languages cooperation

Sebastian, LLVM does define a common function call and struct/array/pointer model. You could use that to define a language-interoperability scheme, but I think it would require some special support from the front-ends to translate functions exposed to a different language to conform with the scheme, or to generate wrappers for them. For example, calling a Fortran function (call-by-reference)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Vikram S. Adve wrote: > LLVM does define a common function call and struct/array/pointer model. You > could use that to define a language-interoperability scheme, but I think it > would require some special support from the front-ends to translate > functions exposed to a different language to conform with the scheme, or to > generate wrappers for them. For

Hello LLVM fathers, 1. "languages, semantic trees" what do you think ideally, do languages implementations based on LLVM need internal semantic tree or they should rather try to use LLVM directly in/after syntax parsing? For languages like C++ the expected answer is "of course we need an internal semantic tree between parsing and LLVM!" But I am still

Hello Chris, Chris Lattner wrote: >This really stems from >differing goals, though LLVM can certainly be used to compile MSIL-like >systems, so it's just a matter of specifying the rules and making the >front-ends stick to them. :) > > Ok, this is clear. Do you plan any "foreign function interface" or something similar that would ease, if not automate

Hello Vikram, Saturday, September 6, 2003, 9:10:45 PM, you wrote: VSA> For any language with relatively sophisticated syntax and semantic VSA> rules, you will probably need a higher-level representation like an VSA> Abstract Syntax Tree in order to do type-checking and other kinds of VSA> checking. OK, concerning AST -- I see. Thank you. VSA> For OCAML, for example, the

> I think many people were confused by this at first but an excellent counter > example was provided in a previous thread: C99 ABIs can require that struct > return values are returned via a pointer to a preallocated struct passed as > an auxiliary argument *except* when you're talking about a C99 complex, in > which case the return value is conveyed in a completely different

On Monday 10 December 2007 23:52, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On 2007-12-10, at 18:28, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Incidentally, should more OCaml stuff beyond the bindings be part of > > LLVM or would it be better to fork them into a separate project > > Can you be more specific than "stuff"? I'm thinking of a library that compiles an AST represented by an OCaml data

TSG (our support group) is going to set up a Wiki on zion so that access can be checked against a list of some sort. It should happen by early next week, perhaps sooner (not likely). They actually have a central departmental Wiki and created an LLVM space there already, but that cannot be made accessible to non-UIUC people without creating an account for each person. They have a

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Xuehai Qian wrote: > > Hi LLVMers, > > I am a PHD student in CS dept in UIUC, I am doing a project for > > Vikram's course, it is about PRE. I would like to know why you didn't > > choose SSAPRE in LLVM, since it seems to be more suitable for

Chris Lattner wrote: > BTW, you might want to check out this document that Reid wrote, which > >describes his experiences writing a front-end for LLVM, and giving lots of >hints and tips: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/Stacker.html > > Thanks, I already had a quick look on it. Also thanks for your explanation on how the C++ back-end converts function calls to LLVM code. As

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, [ISO-8859-1] S�bastien Pierre wrote: > In this respect, it might be interesting to come up with guidelines (or > maybe something more "formal") for back-end developers to write such > cross-language communication runtime. Sure, that sounds like a very worthwhile project, but also a hard one. :-) > As LLVM seems to offer a language-independant type

On Nov 28, 2007, at 15:18, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Gordon Henriksen wrote: >> > >> The codegen for raise is simple. It just reads a saved return >> address from the caml_exception_pointer global and returns through >> several stack frames in one go. > > Nice. Yup. >> The try-with expression is where the trickery lies. The

Sebastien Pierre wrote: > I am an LLVM newbie, thinking about using LLVM as the platform for a toy > language. BTW, you might want to check out this document that Reid wrote, which describes his experiences writing a front-end for LLVM, and giving lots of hints and tips: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/Stacker.html -Chris -- http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/Projects/

Hi, I just wrote up a recent project which I think would be a natural fit with LLVM. I'm curious if y'all see this working well or if you can see any gotchas. Also potentially interested in finding someone comfortable with LLVM who would like to collaborate: Executive summary: What if the syntax and semantics of a programming language were specified in a library, rather than built

Valery, For any language with relatively sophisticated syntax and semantic rules, you will probably need a higher-level representation like an Abstract Syntax Tree in order to do type-checking and other kinds of checking. For OCAML, for example, the front-end is quite sophisticated and complex and the LLVM representation would not be suitable for supporting all the checking and translation. It

This sounds ambitious and should be very interesting, if you can make it work. The closest example I have heard of is work on metaprogramming (or partial evaluation) by exposing a compiler's parse trees to the programmer, but I suspect that is more limited. I don't know specific references offhand but one of the papers on MetaOCaml (which takes a different approach) may have

On Apr 4, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Xuehai Qian wrote: >>> Hi LLVMers, >>> I am a PHD student in CS dept in UIUC, I am doing a project for >>> Vikram's course, it is about PRE. I would like to know why you >>>

On Feb 23, 2009, at 10:30 AMPST, Aaron Gray wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com > > wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> > wrote: > These benchmarks are not distributed with llvm (which doesn't have the > legal right to distribute Spec, for example). If you have

On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: >> It only works if values are not held in registers across throws >> though, which is kinda lame ... > > > Though I'm primarily interested in this model only from an > interoperability perspective, reloading the register file for a throw > seems a comparatively small price to pay compared to, say, >

> -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Reames [mailto:listmail at philipreames.com] > Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:38 AM > To: Swaroop Sridhar <Swaroop.Sridhar at microsoft.com>; llvm-dev <llvm- > dev at lists.llvm.org>; Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> > Cc: Joseph Tremoulet <jotrem at microsoft.com>; Andy Ayers > <andya at