similar to: [LLVMdev] Ocaml(opt) & llvm

On Nov 26, 2007, at 13:27, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: > As some might probably know, the LLVM compiler http://llvm.org/ has > (at least in its latest SVN snapshot) a binding for Ocaml. This > means that one could code in Ocaml some stuff (eg a JIT-ing > compiler) which uses (and links with) LLVM libraries. Yep! There are no bindings for the JIT (just for codegen), but it has

Hello List, (apparently this list is moderated) Le/On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 03:45:41PM -0600, Misha Brukman écrivait/wrote: > On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 10:33:09PM +0100, Basile STARYNKEVITCH > wrote: Basile>> I want to try to use LLVM only for JIT only use (generating code in Basile>> memory for x86 and, when available PowerPC [32bits]) If you want to know I am experimenting

Dear All, I downloaded the latest CVS of llvm I want to try to use LLVM only for JIT only use (generating code in memory for x86 and, when available PowerPC [32bits]) How do I ./configure to avoid being asked about llvmgcc, which, in my very partial understanding, is only used to parse C code... If I understand correctly what Chris Lattner emailed me, LLVM uses only GCC frontend for C & C++

On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 10:33:09PM +0100, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: > I want to try to use LLVM only for JIT only use (generating code in > memory for x86 and, when available PowerPC [32bits]) Cool! FYI, the PowerPC JIT needs work to make it operational, but the x86 JIT is good to go. > How do I ./configure to avoid being asked about llvmgcc, which, in my > very partial

Thank you for this reply. If so, is there any way to merge basic blocks into a single one? Thanks, Seung J. Lee ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:27:38 +0200 >From: Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile at starynkevitch.net> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLVM assembly without basic block >To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > >Seung

Le Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:17:41PM -0700, Tanya M. Lattner écrivait/wrote: > > Here is the schedule: > > May 7th - Release branch created. Developers should begin reviewing > all documentation. > > May 14th - Tar balls and binaries are released for general testing. I'll > also need volunteers to create additional llvm-gcc binaries that I have > not provided.

Hello All, On a Debian/AMD64 host I am surprised that there is apparently no way to generate position independent code in shared object (i.e. to output files which are easy dlopen-able without pain)? I probably missed something obvious, but what? I want to compile LLVM assembly source code -suitably generated- into .so as directly as possible... Regards -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: >> On a Debian/AMD64 host I am surprised that there is apparently no way to >> generate position independent code in shared object (i.e. to output >> files which are easy dlopen-able without pain)? >> >> I probably missed something obvious, but what? > > You're missing the fact that

Hello (my machine is a Debian/Sid/x86-64/Core2) Assuming I have one C source file chello.c, to compile it into a dynamically loadable thru dlopen shared object, I can run gcc -fPIC -shared -O chello.c -o chello.so I thought that, assuming I have one llvm source ehello.ll, the equivalent would be llvmc2 -opt ehello.ll -o ehello.so but it is not that simple. Any clues ? May I also

Le Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:36:22AM -0700, Chris Lattner écrivait/wrote: > On Thu, 3 May 2007, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: > > > > > FWIW, the latest gcc snapshot from yesterday gcc version 4.3.0 20070501 > > (experimental) fail to compile latest LLVM (with compile errors!). > > Please file an llvm bug report with these errors. It may be that we are > doing

Hello All Does any know about some opensource multithread-compatible (or concurrent) garbage collector library, if possible suitable for LLVM? (I mean that I want several mutator threads; the collector can be stoptheworld or concurrent ....) H.Boehm's conservative GC is multithread compatible, but seems quite slow (allocation is about the time of a C malloc). And it is well known that

On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 11:04:58PM +0100, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: > (apparently this list is moderated) Yes, we get too much spam, so it's moderated, but only with regard to spam, nothing else. > Basile>> I want to try to use LLVM only for JIT only use (generating > code in Basile>> memory for x86 and, when available PowerPC [32bits]) > > If you want to know

Hello All, What version of g++ is usable to compile the latest LLVM CVS snapshot on a Linux/x86-64 (AMD64) Debian/ Sid or Etch plateform? What compiler do LLVM dzevelopers use to compile LLVM on Linux/X86-64 systems? IKt seems that most versions of g++ fail to compile LLVM and that some others compile it wrongly (producing buggy code)? Why can't g++-4.1 be used? FWIW, the latest gcc

Thank you for reminding me the notion of the basic block. Of course, I know all the assembly takes the form of BBs and is divided into units of BB. OK. It looks better for me to explain what I wanted to do more clear from the first. Actually, I am working on emitting out an assembly of VM by using LLVM. LLVM assembly looks similar with this VM assembly except BB. The VM assembly does not have the

Hello, with the latest LLVM (almost 2.0 CVS) what is the right way to read a module from a byte array fetched from a database? I thought that I could subclass llbm::module to add my own fields (typically, a MySQL id number) and then parse it as bitcode, but I am stuck, since apparently the only way to parse bitcode is to use a BitcodeReader then calling materializeModule gives a fresh llvm

Le Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 12:00:03PM -0600, Chris Lattner écrivait/wrote: > > > This is just a note to mention that the PowerPC JIT is now operational and > begging for testing in mainline CVS. There is one known problem (below), > but otherwise it works as well as the static PowerPC backend on the test > suite. [....] I'll be delighted to test it, but so fare I was not

>> Apparently BitcodeReader.h is only in lib/Bitcode/Reader/ but not in >> include, so a make install does not install it. >I'm not sure what you mean... the header is in include/llvm/Bitcode. >> Is it supposed to be accessible from applications? How exactly? I feel that >> some install rule is missing; after a sudo make install, >> grep -rn BitcodeReader

Dear All, according to http://llvm.org/SVNMigration.html the repository migrated to SubVersion (svn) on june 5th 2007 (almost 10 days ago). Did the migration happened as expected? http://llvm.org/releases/ still mention CVS, and nothing on http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#checkout suggest to switch to svn instead of cvs. What is the current best way to download the latest snapshot:

Hello All File llvm/lib/ExecutionEngine/Interpreter/Execution.cpp (cvs rev 1.182) fails to compile with g++ 4.1.3 (Debian/Sid/AMD64 system) make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/Lang/llvm/_Obj64/lib/Target' make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/Lang/llvm/_Obj64/lib/ExecutionEngine' make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/src/Lang/llvm/_Obj64/lib/ExecutionEngine/Interpreter' llvm[3]:

Hello All, I suspect that LLVM performs very well, mostly because I respect a lot his main architect Chris. However, I have no ideas about concrete performance of the LLVM compiler, in particular speed of the compilation process to achieve small optimisation (mostly something equivalent to gcc -fPIC -O1 in terms of code quality). The intent is to generated .so files (I want to avoid the