similar to: [LLVMdev] SoC proposal: HLVM Python front-end

What happened to the HLVM project? I understand it was intended to be a high-level VM specifically for dynamic languages and this post indicates that it was integrated into the LLVM project last year: http://www.nabble.com/NEWS:-HLVM-merges-with-LLVM-td9627113.html But I cannot find any code in LLVM that looks like it would have come from HLVM. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: (...) > But I cannot find any code in LLVM that looks like it would have come from > HLVM. Don't know about the status of the project, but the code seems to be here: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/ (in directory "hlvm") Regards, Kevin André

Hello, I would also like to apply for Google's Summer of Code, but I am having difficulty finding a concrete project idea to tackle. (Though certainly interesting, a new front-end or a compiler optimization pass seem like to large as projects for a single summer -- and certainly something I couldn't accomplish given my lack of familiarity with the code-base.) I have read the

Gabe, I'm quite new to hacking on LLVM, but I'll give you an idea I had reading some of the recent dev list posts. I think investigating concurrency with regards to LLVM would be very useful (what with multi-cores and all). This could be concurrency in regards to GC, or it could be simply looking at how LLVM can best interface with standard concurrency paradigms (OpenMP, MPI)

To illustrate the value of value types to the OCaml community I recently did a couple of benchmarks. The first was similar to a hash table and stores key-value pairs unboxed in an array: http://groups.google.com/group/fa.caml/msg/8430ebdb687b9268 The second is the hailstone benchmark that the Haskell guys found gave huge performance improvements when using LLVM from GHC:

All, Chris Lattner and I had a recent discussion about merging the HLVM (http://hlvm.org/) and LLVM (http://llvm.org/) projects. We agreed in principle and the merging of the two projects will now commence. This merger makes sense for both projects. LLVM needs to expand into the realm of front end tool kits. HLVM provides LLVM with some initial front-end capabilities. Since HLVM uses LLVM and

The (new) HLVM project is continuing to improve and I have graphed and analysed some performance-related data. Beating OCaml on numerical performance using LLVM turned out to be quite easy on x86: http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/performance-ocaml-vs-hlvm-beta-04.html This was achieved using a single optimization pass in HLVM (unrolling) and none of LLVM's own IR optimization

I have committed the changes to HLVM that bring it up to date with respect to the new LLVM 2.6 release: http://hlvm.forge.ocamlcore.org/ This required handling of llcontexts and the injection of a call to the new Llvm_executionengine.initialize_native_target function (that is undocumented) *before* the JIT EE is created, otherwise LLVM resorts to the LLVM interpreter which breaks at

HLVM is a garbage collected virtual machine built upon LLVM: http://forge.ocamlcore.org/projects/hlvm/ The development of HLVM was described in a series of three OCaml Journal articles that turned out to be among our most popular. Consequently, we have decided to run another series of related articles that build upon this foundation in order to develop complete compilers. The first article

I have been working on a high-level virtual machine built upon LLVM since Christmas 2008 and just released the first working version: http://forge.ocamlcore.org/projects/hlvm/ This alpha release of HLVM provides: . Unit, bool, int and float primitive types. . Tuples (as first-class structs). . Homogeneous array type. . Boxed value type. . Function pointers. . Generic printing. . Full tail

The HLVM project is a high-level VM optimized for scientific computing: http://www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/hlvm/ I implemented the first-working version of a garbage collector capable of collecting from threads that run in parallel in November. Initial performance was awful due to the overhead of accessing thread-local data via POSIX pthreads. I just completed optimizing HLVM so

Jon Harrop wrote: > The simplest way is surely to reuse HLVM because it provides everything you > need and is even written in the right language! ;-) Is there a web page with HLVM docs? There's a README.txt in the subversion repository: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/hlvm/trunk/README.txt which says: HLVM comes with documentation in HTML format. These are provided in

Someone is trying to work on HLVM with me but they're hitting a problem that we have not been able to resolve. Specifically, GCC seems to be performing some kind of sanity check for "stack smashing" and is calling abort because it is unhappy with something that the code is doing. However, I am not sure what and cannot reproduce the problem. The stack trace they have given me is:

The ocamldoc-generated documentation for HLVM is now available here: http://www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/hlvm/docs/ -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

I took the first two lines of the sample program in the tutorial: hendrik at lovesong:~/dv/lang/hlvm$ cat broken.cpp #include "llvm/DerivedTypes.h" #include "llvm/Module.h" hendrik at lovesong:~/dv/lang/hlvm$ and tried to compile them using the llvm-dev in Debian testing: hendrik at lovesong:~/dv/lang/hlvm$ g++ -o broken.o -c broken.cpp In file included from

You need to use the script 'llvm-config' to pass correct arguments to g ++: g++ -o broken.o `llvm-config --cxxflags` broken.cpp On Jun 2, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Hendrik Boom wrote: > I took the first two lines of the sample program in the tutorial: > > > hendrik at lovesong:~/dv/lang/hlvm$ cat broken.cpp > #include "llvm/DerivedTypes.h" > #include

On Tuesday 16 June 2009 15:44:04 Aaron Gray wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > >Even if this puts LLVM at an unfair disadvantage, I think you will find > >that > >LLVM will thrash MLton's current x86 backend anyway. > > > >I did some benchmarking on HLVM and found that it was often several times > >faster than OCaml when the GC is not the bottleneck: > >

Talin wrote: > Jon wrote: > > Talin wrote: > > > Garbage collection is still way too difficult. > > > > This is completely untrue. > > I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree... I failed to get my point across. You're still talking about the difficulty of using LLVM's GC support. I was talking about circumventing it. The shadow stack HLVM uses

Would you then agree with me that "LLVM's garbage collection facilities, _as described in the LLVM documentation_, are too difficult to use"? On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Jon Harrop < jonathandeanharrop at googlemail.com> wrote: > Talin wrote: > > Jon wrote: > > > Talin wrote: > > > > Garbage collection is still way too difficult. > >

>On Sunday 14 June 2009 14:09:33 Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Florian Weimer<fw at deneb.enyo.de> wrote: >> > Is this really a problem for MLton? I think you only get less precise >> > alias analysis, and that's it. >> >> Correct. However, I want a fair comparison between LLVM performance >> and the native x86