similar to: [LLVMdev] 100-line native code compiler

On Wednesday 22 April 2009 12:15:09 Chris Wailes wrote: > That is perfectly understandable. My problem was that I had never seen the > stream syntax before. While I'm no OCaml master, I have used it for a > while and so it might be that other people coming to the tutorial may have > the same experience. This page may be of help:

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:

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

On Monday 26 November 2007 19:30, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > It might be exciting to have an Ocaml with "exec" (surely it would > allow new classes of programs), but static compilation seems clearly > superior for existing programs, so my focus is there for now. There are various different approaches to this, of course, but having tried the Lisp and MetaOCaml approaches I think

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 17:22:36 Jaap Suter wrote: > if anybody has time, I would recommend putting a big disclaimer at the top > of the garbage collection page that explains that, for the most part, > garbage collection falls outside of LLVM's domain. Yes. However, I think it would also be extremely productive to have working examples showcasing what LLVM does provide, e.g.

On Wednesday 19 March 2008 21:27:18 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Argiris Kirtzidis wrote: > > I'd like to hear your opinions and ideas for a proposal to improve > > support for C++ parsing for LLVM's clang front end. > > Some meta feedback: C++ support in clang is a huge project, far and away > more than any mortal can get done in a summer. While it

>> I had the idea of implementing a lot of the operations in FFTs. ( for >> example, it is possible to do auto-correlation and FIR filtering using >> FFTs.) There are two advantages to this. >> 1. It's almost always faster >> 2. By swapping fft implementations, it could be easy to recompile for >> fixed or floating point versions. > > No. FFT's

I have an irregular time series in a Zoo object, and I've been unable to find any way to do an FFT on it. More precisely, I'd like to do an NFFT (non-equispaced / non-uniform time FFT) on the data. The data is timestamped samples from a cheap self-logging accelerometer. The data is weakly regular, with the following characteristics: - short gaps every ~20ms - large gaps every ~200ms

Since OCaml 4 the old and confusing caml_enter_blocking_section and caml_leave_blocking_section calls have been replaced with caml_release_runtime_system and caml_acquire_runtime_system (in that order). Use the new names. --- generator/OCaml.ml | 5 +++-- ocaml/guestfs-c.c | 5 +++-- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/generator/OCaml.ml b/generator/OCaml.ml index

I'm trying to get these cleaned up and landed, but I'm running into some trouble with this patch. Using commit a08b29d88e3c (July 21) of Ne10, I'm seeing test failures for 60-point FFTs: nfft=60 inverse=0,snr = -3.312408 ** poor snr: -3.312408 ** nfft=60 inverse=1,snr = -16.079597 ** poor snr: -16.079597 ** All other sizes tested appear to work fine (84 to 140 dB of SNR). This

Hi everyone,                    I am new in this field. I am trying to install LLVM in my 32-bit Windows XP. Can anyone please give a to do list for installing LLVM in my machine. When trying to build LLVM, I get the following error:    llvm[3]: Compiling llvm_ocaml.c for Debug build In file included from D:\Program Files\Objective Caml\lib/caml/misc.h:24,                  from D:\Program

Hi Adam, > OK. I know the reason you cannot reproduce it, before posting > the patch I've decided to check for AVX before checking AVX2, > just not to cpuid AVX2 when we don't have AVX1 anyway. I suspect it was also incompetence on my part. Given the differences I'm seeing now I can't believe there'd be *no* difference in my tests if I'd done them properly.

> I had the idea of implementing a lot of the operations in FFTs. ( for > example, it is possible to do auto-correlation and FIR filtering using > FFTs.) There are two advantages to this. > 1. It's almost always faster > 2. By swapping fft implementations, it could be easy to recompile for > fixed or floating point versions. No. FFT's require higher precision than

Hello Timothy, Great to hear from you! Fired up my hardware today and this issue looks like a regression in Ne10 library. The commit in Ne10 [1] that I tested to be working successfully back in May 5b63074db45000f9688460990ee3f5e147d93782 which is the Patch Phil at ARM added to fix the overflow issue in nfft=60 case. After git-bisect, looks like the culprit patch in Ne10 [1] is

> > <with Prof. Farnsworth voice> "Good News, everyone". > > I've just kicked off project "Sphinx". Which is supposed to > sound like "Speex" merged with "INT". ;) Meaning I am working > on an integer encoder and decoder. > Great. I looked into converting speex to fixed point a while ago, but my job has gotten much busier

Hi, Everyone, I got a error when I try to compile LLVM 2.7, it is located in the ocaml bindings file, showing like: llvm[2]: Compiling llvm_ocaml.c for Release+Asserts build In file included from C:\Objective Caml\lib/caml/misc.h:24, from C:\Objective Caml\lib/caml/alloc.h:23, from /home/leila/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm_ocaml.c:19: In file included from

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 19 February 2009 19:32:14 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On 2009-02-19, at 14:00, Jon Harrop wrote: > > I'm toying with benchmarks on my HLVM and am unable to get any > > performance improvement from optimization passes. I simply copied > > the use of PassManager from the Kaleidoscope tutorial: > > > > Any idea what I might be doing

In particular glibc's crypt will return NULL / errno == ENOSYS and other implementations might do that in future too. --- customize/crypt-c.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/customize/crypt-c.c b/customize/crypt-c.c index d5425cfaa..e358018cd 100644 --- a/customize/crypt-c.c +++ b/customize/crypt-c.c @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ #include <stdio.h> #include

This change allows parts of the daemon to be written in the OCaml programming language. I am using the ‘Main Program in C’ method along with ‘-output-obj’ to create an object file from the OCaml code / runtime, as described here: https://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/intfc.html Furthermore, change the generator to allow individual APIs to be implemented in OCaml. This is picked by