similar to: [LLVMdev] EH and call conversion integration

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: > I am currently trying to make EH (exception handling) possible to be > integrated in C++. This means that C++ code can throw exceptions and > llvm code can catch such exception and llvm can throw exceptions that > C++ can catch (or pass through). There are quite some difficulties with > approach: Cool! This is the major

Chris Lattner pravi: > On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: >> I am currently trying to make EH (exception handling) possible to be >> integrated in C++. This means that C++ code can throw exceptions and >> llvm code can catch such exception and llvm can throw exceptions that >> C++ can catch (or pass through). There are quite some difficulties with

Chris Lattner pravi: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: >> I was going through documentation and source lately, and I decided >> how to >> make llvm bytecode more compatible to C++: >> 1) thiscall sould be introduced, which would take N arguments and the >> first argument would always be the C++ "this" argument. This would >>

I was going through documentation and source lately, and I decided how to make llvm bytecode more compatible to C++: 1) thiscall sould be introduced, which would take N arguments and the first argument would always be the C++ "this" argument. This would abstract llvm compiler dependant C++ code emittion. 2) the ret instruction should be able to return structs (as Chris has already

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: >> Sure. Anton can give you ideas for this. >> > I think it should not be too difficult because you allow custom call > conversions and this is quite easy to add, we only have to garantee that > the backend will emit it. Right. >>> 2) the ret instruction should be able to return structs (as Chris has >>>

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: > I was going through documentation and source lately, and I decided how to > make llvm bytecode more compatible to C++: > 1) thiscall sould be introduced, which would take N arguments and the > first argument would always be the C++ "this" argument. This would > abstract llvm compiler dependant C++ code emittion. Sure.

I was going through documentation and source lately, and I decided how to make llvm bytecode more compatible to C++: 1) thiscall sould be introduced, which would take N arguments and the first argument would always be the C++ "this" argument. This would abstract llvm compiler dependant C++ code emition. 2) the ret instruction should be able to return structs (as Chris has already

Chris Lattner pravi: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: >>> Sure. Anton can give you ideas for this. >>> >> I think it should not be too difficult because you allow custom call >> conversions and this is quite easy to add, we only have to garantee that >> the backend will emit it. > > Right. > >>>> 2) the ret

Hello, everyone! My name is Žiga Osolin and I am one of administrators of baadengine project (www.baadengine.org). It is an open source, BSD-licenced, game engine. We are very interested in llvm to provide us runtime code generation (basically, wrappers to easily call scripts from C++ and vica-versa, via vtbl (we replace vtbl for scripted types)) and also to allow our VM to run on llvm. Our

I was wondering if (and when) is the full C++ compiling support (as it was with llvm3) to be expected (this mainly means the addition of EH to llvm)? Regards, Žiga

Hi everyone! I am working on a .NET based project (actually written in C#). During the coding, we have noticed many inefficiencies of C# compiler to optimize code. Compiler performs only a few optimisations. A vital optimisation, inlining, is missed. The JIT-er has rules not to inline methods containing structs as parameters (this is really stupid!) and inlining methods longer than 20 bytes

Hello! I have a question how about JIT-ed code and the C++ compiler compatibily. My project (www.baadengine.org) will use llvm and we will provide integration of JIT-ed code directly into C++ code. This means that C++ code can call JIT code just like any other code and JIT-ed code can call C++ code. We will compile to your bytecode from our BSF format. The question is if it is possible this

> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: >> The other thing are the return types. I don't know (it is probably even >> not documented) how VC++ returns smart pointer (boost::smart_ptr), >> or any other type (other basics types, such as int, float, ... are >> probably returned into EAX as with GCC). Once again, we may >> need specific return values

Hello, Žiga > I am also asking how stables are llvm and llvm-gcc under cygwin (since > our engine is windows based)? Do you think that we can compile such > thing without really big problems (and hacks)? I haven't tried Cygwin for ages, but, as it seems to me, it's not a solution you're looking for (due to some license restrictions, etc). LLVM (and llvm-gcc4) compiles and

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: > The other thing are the return types. I don't know (it is probably even > not documented) how VC++ returns smart pointer (boost::smart_ptr), > or any other type (other basics types, such as int, float, ... are > probably returned into EAX as with GCC). Once again, we may > need specific return values per arhitecture. It is

Hi all, I've been following LLVM for a couple of years, and though I've not found an occasion to use it (yet), I'm always curious about its potential uses. I was discussing with friends about the Cell processor, and some of the arguments were that it is difficult to program and difficult to optimize. One of the concerns was that the PPE (central processor) is "in

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: > The problem is this is not possible, because what I would compile to JIT > are actual classes. The integration of C++ and JIT code is very > important; for example we would create our own vtbls with JIT-ed code > addresses as the function call target. Ok. Realize that this ties you to a specific compiler version though. >

Hello (again)! I fixed most of the system and the following projects compile now: * Analysis * AsmParser * Bytecode * CBeckend * Codegen * ExecutionEngine * Support * System * TableGen * Target * Transforms * VMCore I would like to compile at least x86 target as well as Fibonacci example (to test if it really works). In order to do so, I may need some hints: 1) How to generate

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Steve Cheng <steve.ckp at gmail.com> wrote: > On 2015-05-15 18:37:58 -0400, Reid Kleckner said: > > After a long tale of sorrow and woe, my colleagues and I stand here >> before you defeated. The Itanium EH representation is not amenable to >> implementing MSVC-compatible exceptions. We need a new representation that >> preserves

We already have something like what you describe in the form of mingw support. It runs on Windows and handles exceptions using a DWARF-style personality function and (I think) an LLVM-provided implementation of the libc++abi library. What this doesn't do is provide interoperability with MSVC-compiled objects. For instance, you can't throw an exception from MSVC-compiled code and catch