similar to: [LLVMdev] NEWS: HLVM merges with LLVM

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

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 Wed, 2007-03-28 at 10:22 -0500, Christopher Lamb wrote: > I don't want to drive this too off topic, but I should be clear that I > wasn't suggesting that the LLVM project adopt XPJ as it's official > config file format for Visual Studio. I have found it useful to use > XPJ to generate the initial VS projects for a code base that doesn't > already have VS projects.

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

Hi, I am senior student at Tashkent University of Information Technologies and I am highly interested in programming language design. I want to develop Python front-end for HLVM as a part of LLVM participation in Google Summer of Code project. I am in long love with Python programming language for its simplicity and effectiveness. Last year I noticed ShedSkin Python to C++ translator among SoC

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

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

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

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)

> The current SVN repository has several modules at the top level (llvm, > test-suite, java, stacker, etc.). The modules contain the software that > makes up the LLVM Project. However, there is nothing at the top level > that explains any of this. So, I am considering doing the following at > the top level of the repository (i.e. in > http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project): > >

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

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:

I just have a couple of comments on this: 1. Minor issue: I think the README should be in text format (or text and HTML) so that someone checking it out on the command line can read it easily. 2. If the projects directory goes away, we should provide a different mechanism for someone starting a new project based on LLVM to use as a template. This could include, minimally, a Makefile and

Hi Tanya, On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 19:38 -0700, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > > The current SVN repository has several modules at the top level (llvm, > > test-suite, java, stacker, etc.). The modules contain the software that > > makes up the LLVM Project. However, there is nothing at the top level > > that explains any of this. So, I am considering doing the following at >

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 Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > I don't think we should have a docs module. Its much better to allow a > person to check out only llvm and get the appropriate documentation. Same > for hlvm, and whatever project. Its very inconvenient to check out > multiple things just to get llvm and docs. To put it another way, I think the docs for the subproject should follow

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

All, The current SVN repository has several modules at the top level (llvm, test-suite, java, stacker, etc.). The modules contain the software that makes up the LLVM Project. However, there is nothing at the top level that explains any of this. So, I am considering doing the following at the top level of the repository (i.e. in http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project): 1. /README.html Just a short