similar to: [LLVMdev] 32-bit indexes

On Tuesday 04 December 2007 15:26, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > I notice that, even though I'm on 64-bit, many indexes are required by > > LLVM to be 32-bit integers. This won't be too important for the next few > > years except, I think, for the case of indexing large mmapped files which > > could already require more than 32-bits. > > > >

Hi Jon, > I notice that, even though I'm on 64-bit, many indexes are required by LLVM to > be 32-bit integers. This won't be too important for the next few years > except, I think, for the case of indexing large mmapped files which could > already require more than 32-bits. > > Am I right and is this on the todo list? What are 32-bit integers doing in the >

Hi Jon, > But array lengths must be 32-bit? array types can have 64 bit lengths. This is useful for modelling all of memory as an array. > I've just started using arrays here so maybe I'm doing something wrong but > attempting to allocate an array with a 64-bit length gives the error: > > bench: Instructions.cpp:650: llvm::Value* getAISize(llvm::Value*): Assertion

On Tuesday 04 December 2007 16:38, Duncan Sands wrote: > Ah, memory allocation! I think you want to declare a very long array type > and then alloc one of them (rather than trying to alloc a large number of > array components). I see. I was indeed making a mistake. This begs the question of what exactly I was doing though. What exactly does "alloc a large number of array

On Tuesday 04 December 2007 19:12, Chris Lattner wrote: > As far as I know, the only thing that is not 64-bit clean are the malloc > and alloca instructions, both of which take a fixed 32-bit integer operand > instead of either a 32-bit or 64-bit one. This can be worked around in > various ways, but the best solution is to just fix it. Patches welcome. Thanks for the clarification.

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: $

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

> 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

----- 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 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

----- 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 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

This is not a quite fair comparison. Other virtual machines must be doing garbage collection, while LLVM, as it is using C code, it is taking advantage of memory allocation by hand. On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark the > performance of various VMs using the

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

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

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

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

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."). --