similar to: [LLVMdev] SIMD examples

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Harrop" <jon at ffconsultancy.com> To: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: [LLVMdev] SSE examples > > Does anyone have any LLVM IR examples implementing things using the > instructions for SSE, like complex arithmetic or 3D vector-matrix stuff? > I don't have any examples... >

On Monday 22 June 2009 16:37:41 BGB wrote: > as for what targets support which operations, in the case of SSE, go check > the Intel and AMD64 docs. I was assuming that LLVM's implementations were incomplete. Are they now complete? So anything that a CPU can do and LLVM has bindings for is implemented? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

Does anyone have any LLVM IR examples implementing things using the instructions for SSE, like complex arithmetic or 3D vector-matrix stuff? I'd like to have HLVM use them "under the hood" for some things but I cannot see all of the operations that I was expecting (e.g. dot product) and am not sure what works when (e.g. "Not all targets support all types however."). --

On Saturday 31 January 2009 03:42:04 Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst > > tweaking the command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 > > flag > > The -msse3 flag? Does the -msse2 flag have a similar effect? Yes: $

Is there a tool to spit LLVM's IR out in a more machine-friendly syntax like XML? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

On Saturday 06 February 2010 02:42:47 Evan Cheng wrote: > On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: > >> Does anyone actually using it? > > > > Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. > > Ok, that's all I need to know. > > >> I'd prefer to just remove it to

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 16 February 2010 03:51:00 Jianzhou Zhao wrote: >> Does anyone know if there is any realistic project using LLVM-OCaml >> Bindings? > > I've written a VM in OCaml built upon LLVM using LLVM's OCaml bindings: > >  http://www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/hlvm/ > > There

On Monday 10 December 2007 23:52, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On 2007-12-10, at 18:28, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Incidentally, should more OCaml stuff beyond the bindings be part of > > LLVM or would it be better to fork them into a separate project > > Can you be more specific than "stuff"? I'm thinking of a library that compiles an AST represented by an OCaml data

On Thursday 14 February 2008 16:33:25 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Does CLang use a suitable intermediate representation for this to be > > possible? > > The higher level IR that clang uses is basically a C AST. This interface > is under constant flux though. If you wanted to do this, it would be > very reasonable to just cons up

> How do you handle tail calls and value types? I haven't worried too much about optimisation yet, so it doesn't do anything special for tail calls (although neither does the java compiler). LLVM types are translated to their equivalent java primitive type (or currently it raises an assertion if there is no equivalent type). -- David Roberts http://da.vidr.cc/ On Sat, Nov 28, 2009

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 Monday 04 January 2010 03:33:06 Simon Harris wrote: > On 04/01/2010, at 3:01 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > I am certainly interested in tail calls because my HLVM project relies > > upon LLVM's tail call elimination. However, I do not understand what tail > > calls LLVM is not currently eliminating that you plan to eliminate? > > Mutual recursion for a start: >

On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: >> Does anyone actually using it? > > Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. Ok, that's all I need to know. > >> I'd prefer to just remove it to clean up the implementation if no one has >> any objections. > > Are you

I've experienced GCC induced eyeball-clawing.... Not pretty! On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Sunday 05 April 2009 06:33:00 Rajika Kumarasiri wrote: > > FYI, > > http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1215438 > > > > -Rajika > > LOL: > > "In contrast, every time I look at the GCC

Are there any papers in the works which benchmark some specification suite of C programs on GCC, LLVM-GCC, and CLANG? The only stuff I have seen so far are some bar charts in a few LLVM presentations, would be nice to have something a little more comprehensive. Cheers, Granville On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 16 June 2009

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 24 February 2010 03:58:03 Jianzhou Zhao wrote: >> I think LLVM OCaml bindings do not support JIT too much. > > Can you elaborate on this? I meant the OCaml bindings let OCaml call existing C++ LLVM routines, such as creating an execution engine, JIT-ing a function with existing JIT or

Has anyone begun collating data structures and algorithms written in LLVM's IL? I am just considering how to implement my first GC and it would help enormously if I could just pull in a concurrent queue written in IL, for example. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Harrop" <jon at ffconsultancy.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 6:56 AM Subject: [LLVMdev] Performance vs other VMs > > The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark > the > performance of various VMs using the SciMark2

On Thursday 19 November 2009 19:48:18 Owen Anderson wrote: > On Nov 19, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > >> In this case, the assertion that LLVM is slow is correct: it's > >> definitely slower than a non-optimizing compiler. > > > > I'm *very* surprised by this and will test it myself... I've tested it and LLVM is indeed 2x slower to compile,

On Monday 07 December 2009 17:55:44 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Garrison Venn wrote: > > So I gather this means that malloc was removed from the IR because > > there are platforms that don't have non-stack allocation semantics? > > No, it was removed because it wasn't necessary, and the malloc > 'instruction' didn't support 64-bit