similar to: [LLVMdev] Fibonacci example in OCaml

Here is a complete 104-line native code compiler for a tiny subset of OCaml that is expressive enough to compile an external Fibonacci program: type expr = | Int of int | Var of string | BinOp of [ `Add | `Sub | `Leq ] * expr * expr | If of expr * expr * expr | Apply of expr * expr type defn = | LetRec of string * string * expr open Camlp4.PreCast;; let expr = Gram.Entry.mk

On Monday 26 November 2007 00:40, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > The type you want is: > > let sp = pointer_type i8_type in > var_arg_function_type sp [| sp; sp |] Awesome stuff. Here is my most elegant Fibonacci example in OCaml so far: open Llvm let ( |> ) x f = f x let int n = const_int i32_type n let return b x = build_ret x b |> ignore let build_fib m = let ty =

So my Fib program is segfaulting and I'm not sure why. I think it might be because my declaration and use of sprintf is wrong. I notice llvm-gcc produces declarations containing "..." like: declare int %printf(sbyte*, ...) but I'm not sure how to do this so I've used: let sprintf = declare_function "sprintf" (function_type (pointer_type

On Nov 25, 2007, at 18:53, Jon Harrop wrote: > So my Fib program is segfaulting and I'm not sure why. I think it > might be because my declaration and use of sprintf is wrong. > > I notice llvm-gcc produces declarations containing "..." like: > > declare int %printf(sbyte*, ...) > > What is the correct way to do this? The type you want is: let sp =

On 2007-10-02, at 10:46, Jan Rehders wrote: > where can I read more about this? I assume (hope) the lib provides > some kind of OCaml bindings? I could not find any trace of it in > the 2.1 release source so I guess it's currently SVN only? Jan, Here's a trivial example. $ cat metahelloworld.ml (* metahelloworld.ml *) open Llvm open Llvm_bitwriter let _ = let filename

Hi all, Here's an example of how to LLVM's JIT compiler/interpreter from Ocaml. $ cat jithelloworld.ml (* jithelloworld.ml *) open Llvm open Llvm_executionengine let execute_function f m = (* Set up the JIT. *) let jit = ExecutionEngine.create (ModuleProvider.create m) in ExecutionEngine.run_static_ctors jit; (* Execute the function. *) ignore

Hi, this looks very promising. Do you have any plans to add bindings for the use of an ExecutionEngine, especially recompileAndRelinkFunction? I've build an interactive toplevel implemented in OCaml and I have to pull of some stunts to be able to change the definition of a function. (emit a .ll file containing the code, looking up the function and calling removeBody, then reading

Hi, where can I read more about this? I assume (hope) the lib provides some kind of OCaml bindings? I could not find any trace of it in the 2.1 release source so I guess it's currently SVN only? greetings, Jan On 2. Okt 2007, at 12:22, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On 2007-10-02, at 03:19, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> On Oct 2, 2007, at 00:17, Bill Wendling wrote: >>

On 2007-10-02, at 03:19, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On Oct 2, 2007, at 00:17, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> I get this error duing a "make install": >> >> llvm[3]: Installing Debug /usr/local/lib/ocaml/libllvm.a >> install: /usr/local/lib/ocaml/libllvm.a: Permission denied >> make[3]: *** [install-a] Error 71 >> make[2]: *** [install] Error 1

Jon, On 2007-11-24, at 21:58, Jon Harrop wrote: > I just took another look at the LLVM project and it has come along > in leaps and bounds since I last looked. I've been working through > the (awesome!) tutorial and am now really hyped about the project. Excellent! > I am particularly interested in using LLVM to write compilers for > OCaml-like languages in OCaml-like

On Nov 26, 2007, at 00:47, Jon Harrop wrote: > Here is a complete 104-line native code compiler for a tiny subset > of OCaml that is expressive enough to compile an external Fibonacci > program: > > [...] > > I was kind of hoping that function pointers would just magically > work, so this: > > do (if 1 <= 2 then fib else fib) 40 > > would run, but

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 >

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

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 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: > >

On 2007-11-26, at 21:12, Jon Harrop wrote: > Provide a type enumerating the valid terminators and restrict the > last instruction in a block to be a terminator. Something like this: > > type terminator = [ `ret of llvalue | `br of llvalue ] > type instruction = > [ terminator > | `add of llvalue * llvalue > | `sub of llvalue * llvalue ] > type block

Hi! I just took another look at the LLVM project and it has come along in leaps and bounds since I last looked. I've been working through the (awesome!) tutorial and am now really hyped about the project. I am particularly interested in using LLVM to write compilers for OCaml-like languages in OCaml-like languages. This requires some core functionality that would be generically useful:

On Monday 26 November 2007 20:05, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On Nov 26, 2007, at 14:18, Jon Harrop wrote: > > On Monday 26 November 2007 16:21, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> Unfortunately, even if the bindings were more strongly typed, it > >> would still be structurally possible to build invalid LLVM code, so > >> you've just got to take care not to violate

Thank you very much! To make it simpler, I may as well just implement the self-written "check function" in C language instead of wrapping it in LLVM module. According to the hint you give me, all I need to do is as follow(?) 1. Implement the "Check function" in the check.c file; 2. Add the check function into the module(the Hello1.bc file which I will run the functionPass on)

That sounds like a good general plan, yes! Joey 2012/4/9 15102925731 <zhenkaixd at 126.com> > Thank you very much! > > To make it simpler, I may as well just implement the self-written "check > function" in C language instead of wrapping it in LLVM module. *According > to the hint you give me, all I need to do is as follow(?)* > > 1. Implement the