similar to: [LLVMdev] Boxing and vectors

On Nov 29, 2007, at 16:06, Jon Harrop wrote: > So I now have a working first-order language that uses conventional > boxing to handle polymorphism and with ints, floats and ('a -> 'a) > functions. Cool. > After a huge amount of detailed benchmarking in OCaml and F# I have > decided that it is very important to be able to unbox complex > numbers but no other

I'm also highly interested in relocating-GC support from LLVM. Up until now my GC implementation has been non-relocating which is obviously kind of a bummer given that it inhibits certain classes of memory allocation/deallocation tricks. I wrote up a bunch of my findings on the implementation of my GC here: https://code.google.com/p/epoch-language/wiki/GarbageCollectionScheme Frankly I

> Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages > would benefit from type variables in LLVM? > I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with > instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. I'm surprised you're happy with a non-polymorphic llvm. Does Cayenne target llvm? Dependent types take polymorphism to new heights -- but

On 10/25/13 1:10 PM, Ben Karel wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at azulsystems.com > <mailto:sanjoy at azulsystems.com>> wrote: > > Hi Rafael, Andrew, > > Thank you for the prompt reply. > > One approach we've been considering involves representing the > constraint "pointers to heap objects

> I think many people were confused by this at first but an excellent counter > example was provided in a previous thread: C99 ABIs can require that struct > return values are returned via a pointer to a preallocated struct passed as > an auxiliary argument *except* when you're talking about a C99 complex, in > which case the return value is conveyed in a completely different

I'm a newcomer to llvm, but what you've done so far is very impressive. Llvm is a godsend to anybody who is attempting to implement their own their own language. :-) My company is considering using llvm as the backend for a small matlab-like language for scientific computation; our other option is MSIL. After reading through the documentation, I noticed that llvm seems to have one major

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at azulsystems.com> wrote: > Hi Rafael, Andrew, > > Thank you for the prompt reply. > > One approach we've been considering involves representing the > constraint "pointers to heap objects are invalidated at every > safepoint" somehow in the IR itself. So, if %a and %b are values the > GC is

Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages would benefit from type variables in LLVM? I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:43 PM, DeLesley Hutchins <delesley.spambox at googlemail.com> wrote: >> I think many people were confused by this at first but an

Hello All (to Ocaml List & CC LLVM list) 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. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2007-November/011481.html

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:

On Jan 2, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: >>> I don't think you would want to build discriminated unions on top of >>> C-style unions though. >> >> Why? > > Uniformity when nesting and space efficiency. Users of a language > front-end > will want to nest discriminated unions, e.g. to manipulate trees. Okay, so you're just talking about boxed

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>wrote: > On 10/25/13 1:10 PM, Ben Karel wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at azulsystems.com>wrote: > >> Hi Rafael, Andrew, >> >> Thank you for the prompt reply. >> >> One approach we've been considering involves

On Friday 02 January 2009 20:48:25 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jan 1, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > >> Exactly. I'm not especially interested in C-style unions, I'm > >> interested in discriminated unions. But the actual discriminator field is > >> easily represented in LLVM IR already, so there's no need to extend the > >> IR to support

On Sunday 04 January 2009 01:25:05 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jan 2, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > >>> I don't think you would want to build discriminated unions on top of > >>> C-style unions though. > >> > >> Why? > > > > Uniformity when nesting and space efficiency. Users of a language > > front-end > > will want to

BLAST! LLVM mailing list headers are still royally screwed up... My message is below... On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Talin<viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Hey all, it's been a while since I have posted on this list, but I've > been continuing my work with LLVM and getting lots done :) > > One question I wanted to ask is whether anyone had any advice on how to >

I need some advice on "forwarding" arguments to a callee. Suppose I have a function F that is called at the beginning of all other functions in the module. From F I need to access (read) the arguments passed to its immediate caller. Right now I do something like boxing all arguments in the caller inside a struct and passing a pointer to the struct to F, alongside an identifier

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

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 the invariants, then >> use the verifier as a

On Jan 1, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: >> Exactly. I'm not especially interested in C-style unions, I'm >> interested >> in discriminated unions. But the actual discriminator field is easily >> represented in LLVM IR already, so there's no need to extend the IR >> to >> support them. That's why I am only asking for C-style union

Hello, Everyone LLVM recently was approved to take part in Google Summer of Code 2008. We welcome everyone to apply for this program. The list of ideas for (possible) projects is located at http://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html. Surely you can suggest any other project, if you feel, that it definitely can be useful. Our common requirement for student is to submit proposal to LLVM Developers