similar to: [LLVMdev] ocaml binding question

On Monday 10 December 2007 23:14, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On 2007-12-10, at 18:04, Sarah Thompson wrote: > >> Is it reasonable for me to hack on this, or would you rather do it > >> yourself? (If the latter, you would be very much in my debt...) > > > > Or the other way around, or something. :) > > :) I'm adding it now. I'd really appreciate JIT

Hi Jon, On 2007-12-10, at 18:28, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Monday 10 December 2007 23:14, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> On 2007-12-10, at 18:04, Sarah Thompson wrote: >> >>>> Is it reasonable for me to hack on this, or would you rather do >>>> it yourself? (If the latter, you would be very much in my debt...) >>> >>> Or the other way

On 2007-12-10, at 18:04, Sarah Thompson wrote: > >> Is it reasonable for me to hack on this, or would you rather do it >> yourself? (If the latter, you would be very much in my debt...) > > Or the other way around, or something. :) :) I'm adding it now. — Gordon

On Dec 10, 2007, at 16:52, Sarah Thompson wrote: > I'm considering using ocaml for some experiments I want to try -- > does the binding currently support reading existing bitcode No, but it's easily added… — Gordon

> Is it reasonable for me to hack on this, or would you rather do it > yourself? (If the latter, you would be very much in my debt...) Or the other way around, or something. :) [s]

Gordon Henriksen wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On 2007-12-10, at 18:28, Jon Harrop wrote: > > >> On Monday 10 December 2007 23:14, Gordon Henriksen wrote: >> >> >>> On 2007-12-10, at 18:04, Sarah Thompson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Is it reasonable for me to hack on this, or would you rather do >>>>> it

Hi Sarah, On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 15:11 -0700, Sarah Thompson wrote: > I'll almost certainly come along, possibly with one or two other NASA > people. Great! If/when you know their names, have them drop me a line here. I'd rather put down names than "Sarah+2". Thanks. > I could give a talk on our work using LLVM to support model > checking, symbolic execution and

I'll almost certainly come along, possibly with one or two other NASA people. I could give a talk on our work using LLVM to support model checking, symbolic execution and static analysis if anyone is interested. Sarah Thompson RSE/6G, NASA Ames >

Hi folks, I'm currently extending my model checker to collect coverage information, and as part of this I'm finding a need to get a more friendly version of munged C++ identifiers than the name used by the linker. For example, though internally, something like '_Z7thread1Pv' is fine as an identifier, I'd like to be able to give the user something more readable. Since

Just to give closure here, I eventually gave up, built an Ubuntu 9 VMWare image which uses gcc 4.3.2 by default, installed Eclipse Ganymede and various other tools, then built LLVM 2.5 and my own code. It all ran fine. There is clearly something broken in the CentOS gcc43 package. Definitely one to avoid. [s] On Apr 28, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Sarah Thompson wrote: > (My script does both

Hi Sarah, On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 10:05 -0700, Sarah Thompson wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been quiet for a while, but I'm liable to be less so now that I'm > starting on porting our model checker from LLVM 1.8 to 2.0. We missed you! :) > One thing > that is puzzling me somewhat are the changes made to the GenericValue > union, which is now a struct. I

Hi all, I've been quiet for a while, but I'm liable to be less so now that I'm starting on porting our model checker from LLVM 1.8 to 2.0. One thing that is puzzling me somewhat are the changes made to the GenericValue union, which is now a struct. I haven't found any mention of this on the llvm site or in the archives, so it may be that I am the only one who cares about it

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

Reid Spencer wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 10:05 -0700, Sarah Thompson wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I've been quiet for a while, but I'm liable to be less so now that I'm >> starting on porting our model checker from LLVM 1.8 to 2.0. >> > > We missed you! :) > > Yes, apologies again for not making the

(My script does both of those -- the debug build worked (I think), but the release build fails) [s] On Apr 28, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > We build debug by default. You will have to add ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 on > the "make" command line or --enable-optimized during configuration. > > -bw > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Sarah Thompson <sarah at

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Sarah Thompson wrote: > > >> Do I understand correctly that there is nothing that the current gcc >> front end generates that wouldn't fit an old-style GenericValue? I'm >> wondering if this might be an interim approach that would avoid me >> needing to rewrite huge amounts of code, and since we're not

We build debug by default. You will have to add ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 on the "make" command line or --enable-optimized during configuration. -bw On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Sarah Thompson <sarah at findatlantis.com> wrote: > Hmm... looks like my LLVM build script only built debug versions of > the tools, not release versions. I'm investigating, I didn't change

Hi Folks, I'm having some difficulties getting LLVM to build and work correctly on CENTOS 5.3. This is basically tracked down easily enough to CENTOS using GCC 4.1.x by default, which is known-buggy and known not to work with LLVM -- I was getting the well-known problem with aborts due to a non-empty symbol table. I have installed the gcc43 package via yum (I'm trying to stick

Hmm... looks like my LLVM build script only built debug versions of the tools, not release versions. I'm investigating, I didn't change anything that should have caused that. [s] On Apr 28, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Sarah Thompson <sarah at findatlantis.com > > wrote: >> OK, that got much further, but I'm now

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Sarah Thompson wrote: > Do I understand correctly that there is nothing that the current gcc > front end generates that wouldn't fit an old-style GenericValue? I'm > wondering if this might be an interim approach that would avoid me > needing to rewrite huge amounts of code, and since we're not likely to > be supporting anything other than C and C++