similar to: [LLVMdev] API on JIT, code snippets

Valery, I agree that there could be more examples of JIT-based interpreters, and I like your idea. When can you have it ready? :) Reid. On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 13:11, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > Hi all, > > I think there is still too few docs/samples for those, > who'd like to write JIT-based interpreters. > > Today, the real examples to learn from are rather: > > -

Reid wrote: > I have to agree with Misha on this. None of us knows "everything" about > LLVM and as you can see, Misha responded three hours before I did :). > Asking questions here is encouraged, so please feel free to post them on > LLVMdev. We'll always help where we can. well, OK :) Please find the attachment with the first approach to such an example i've

Valery, I have to agree with Misha on this. None of us knows "everything" about LLVM and as you can see, Misha responded three hours before I did :). Asking questions here is encouraged, so please feel free to post them on LLVMdev. We'll always help where we can. Thanks, Reid. On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 06:37, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 12:32:33PM +0400, Valery

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this "brilliant" :) example in the cvs > repository? I'd be happy to put it in. Here's an idea: how about we take the ModuleMaker, Valery's previous example, and this one and put them all in one "small examples" project? -Chris > Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > >

Valery, First response of several. I don't know why the demo page at UIUC is unavailable but there is an enhanced copy of it running on the mirror at http://llvm.x10sys.com/demo/ if you ever need it. Running it produced the following LLVM equivalent for the C code in your example. implementation ; Functions: int %add1(int %x) { entry: %tmp.1 = add int %x, 1 ; <int> [#uses=1]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > On second thought, the makefiles don't (easily) allow this do they? You can > only build one program per directory. Were you suggesting that you wanted me to > move the entire directories under a "small examples" directory? You're right. The simples way to do this would be to have: projects/ SmallExamples/

On second thought, the makefiles don't (easily) allow this do they? You can only build one program per directory. Were you suggesting that you wanted me to move the entire directories under a "small examples" directory? Reid. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > >>That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this

Hi LLVMers, the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible optimizations are really invoked. Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 on my Athlon XP 1500. Nice. P.S. guys, no fears, I don't plan to flood the cvs repository with my "brilliant" examples ;) --- Valery A.Khamenya -------------- next part -------------- An

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > Attached are three files: "valery.cpp" which contains your original, "reid.cpp" > which contains corrections to most of the FIXME items and "diffs" which shows > the differences between them. The differences should be instructive on what to > do. You were really, really close .. just a few details changing. The

Valery, That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this "brilliant" :) example in the cvs repository? I'd be happy to put it in. Reid. Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > Hi LLVMers, > > the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible > optimizations are really invoked. > > Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 >

Valery, Attached are three files: "valery.cpp" which contains your original, "reid.cpp" which contains corrections to most of the FIXME items and "diffs" which shows the differences between them. The differences should be instructive on what to do. You were really, really close .. just a few details changing. The code in "reid.cpp" compiles but I

Hi Reid, > I agree that there could be more examples of JIT-based interpreters, and > I like your idea. When can you have it ready? :) soon, if you could just help me to get through some sticky places :) Agreed? (if "yes" then you could simply answer me privately and I will send you my concrete questions) Thank you. -- Valery.

On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 12:32:33PM +0400, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > Hi Reid, > > > I agree that there could be more examples of JIT-based interpreters, > > and I like your idea. When can you have it ready? :) > > soon, if you could just help me to get through some sticky places :) > > Agreed? (if "yes" then you could simply answer me privately and I will

Reid Spencer, thank you for your quick responce, finally i got to my PC at home. You wrote: > Attached are three files: "valery.cpp" which contains your original, > "reid.cpp" which contains corrections to most of the FIXME items and > "diffs" which shows the differences between them. The differences > should be instructive on what to do. You were

Hi all, the small test modeling my problem is attached. (see comments in file attached) the problem is that both SetCondInst* CondInst = new SetCondInst( Instruction::SetLE, One, Two ); and SetCondInst* CondInst = new SetCondInst( Instruction::SetLE, Two, One ); have the same output... Anyone have a sharper eye?.. --- Valery A.Khamenya -------------- next part

Valery, Your JIT sample program has been added to projects/HowToUseJIT. I have defaulted the license to the standard UIUC license. Let me know if that's not okay and I'll fix it. If you continue to work on this (providing a command line option to use either interpreter or JIT would be nice), please provide patches against these files and I'll commit them for you. Here's the

I'm trying to start a project based on llvm, but am running into some difficulties. I started with the 'LLVM Project Guide', but got hung up in the complexities of configure.ac. I'm now using llvm-config to provide the linker directives, but this results in undefined references: $ llvm-g++ `$HOME/local/bin/llvm-config --cppflags --ldflags --libs bitwriter` ModuleMaker.cpp

Hi, are there any attempts to use LLVM in graph-rewriting (term-rewriting) language implementations? How good is LLVM for this? E.g., is it natural to expect that the LLVM-based implementation of the language Concurrent Clean be any faster than its reference implementation? Best regards -- Valery A.Khamenya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible > optimizations are really invoked. > > Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 > on my Athlon XP 1500. Cool! Hey Valery, before we add this to the CVS repo, can you take a look at some of the changes I made to your HowToUseJIT example and

Hi all, (thanks to Reid, who gave nice advice) the fibonacci function code works now. Please find attached file. but... the performance is adequate, say, for byte-code interpretation mode and not for optimized JITing. fibonacci function of 35 from attached file is more then 100 times slower then the following code compiled with "gcc -O2" : ----------- #include <iostream> int