similar to: [LLVMdev] Better IDEs/code editors because of LLVM?

Hi Thomas, On 2008-02-10, at 03:58, Thomas Hühn wrote: > I am not sure whether I understand the goals and proposed features > of your > project, so I'd like to ask. > > I'll just pick out one little aspect: > > I think you are developing a compiler that provides "cleaner" and > easier > access to its internals (AST, semantic annotations etc.).

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

Am Freitag, den 16.05.2008, 06:54 -0700 schrieb Chris Lattner: > On May 13, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > > > On May 13, 2008, at 18:28, Dan Gohman wrote: > > > > I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have a flag on loads to mark > > them as immutable. A flag from the source language stating "this load > > never aliases any subsequent

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

On Sunday 25 November 2007 12:23, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On 2007-11-24, at 21:58, Jon Harrop wrote: > > - Garbage collection tuned for functional programming > > http://llvm.org/docs/GarbageCollection.html > > I've been doing some interesting work on this front. Getting Lattner- > cycles to have it reviewed and integrated is probably the biggest > challenge; LLVM

Greetings! I have a few colleagues who like the idea of Sweave, but have failed to become enlightened monks of the One True Editor (http://www.dina.dk/~abraham/religion/) Are there any other Microsoft-centric editors or IDEs which have solid support for writing SWeave documents (dual R / LaTeX enhancements similar to ESS's support)? Has anyone tried the folding editors which support Noweb?

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

OS: CentOS 5.0 x86. I am a programmer, relatively new to GNU/Linux and am looking for cross platform GUI development, mainly for EL5 and Windows. I have found wxWidgets so far. I prefer drag 'n drop programming IDEs, QT seems to provide this for GNU/Linux, but it isn't free for Windows. Does anyone know of any decent GUI cross-platform library for EL5 and Windows with a drag 'n

On Nov 25, 2007, at 11:49, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Sunday 25 November 2007 12:23, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> On 2007-11-24, at 21:58, Jon Harrop wrote: >> >>> - Exceptions >> >> http://llvm.org/docs/ExceptionHandling.html >> >> LLVM's exception support is tuned toward DWARF "zero-cost >> exceptions," i.e. C++ exception

On Aug 14, 2007, at 00:23, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> Changing these structures breaks binary compatibility (including C >> interop). > > If that is so, and if there is no way around this, then it makes > sense to develop some compatibility mode. How does native C code > generate these tables? I might've

On 2007-10-02, at 03:19, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On Oct 2, 2007, at 00:17, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> I get this error duing a "make install": >> >> llvm[3]: Installing Debug /usr/local/lib/ocaml/libllvm.a >> install: /usr/local/lib/ocaml/libllvm.a: Permission denied >> make[3]: *** [install-a] Error 71 >> make[2]: *** [install] Error 1

On Sunday 27 April 2008 00:48:00 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On Apr 26, 2008, at 17:41, Anders Johnsen wrote: > > Hi Gordon, > > > > Thanks a lot for the feedback. I can see I've been way to > > concentrated on how > > llvm is build, then on this particular patch. I've done the changes > > you have > > suggested and it's now a lot nicer and

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > > If so, then a Collector plugin would need to have info about every > > supported backend lays out the runtime stack? > > Yes. This information is actually available in a target-independent > fashion with LLVM, so the Collector interface is target-independent. A > backend

Everything described in GarbageCollection.html should now be live. Phew! The collectors could use a review, but they compile, have no impact unless used, and tests would otherwise have had to be XFAILed waiting on them. The ShadowStackCollector has one issue that may be of interest in that it adds constant globals in a runOnFunction context. This is bad in theory, but actually is

On 2008-01-07, at 05:29, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Monday 07 January 2008 02:32:47 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> Everything described in GarbageCollection.html should now be live. >> Phew! >> > > This is wonderful news! Are there any example programs using these > GCs? The division of labor is such that the user program must provide the stack walker (in

Gordon Henriksen wrote: > What blocks would a phi node in %catch require for a case like this? > > define i8 @f(i1 %b) { > > entry: > > b label %try > > try: unwinds to %catch > > b i1 %b, label %then, label %else > > then: unwinds to %catch > > ret void > > else: unwinds to %catch > > ret

Hi all, The attachment supersedes the previous patch. It incorporates some feedback from Anton and takes the next step of merging the largely duplicated calling convention logic in X86ISelLowering. LowerCCCArguments, LowerX86_64CCCArguments and LowerFastCCArguments are merged and inlined directly into LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS. I moved LowerFORMAL_ARGUMENTS to the location where

2008/7/26 Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at me.com>: > I'm not sure the purpose of doing so—llvm::Collector (poorly named; > I'm open to suggestions) exists only in the compiler, not at runtime > in the compiled program. You should need access to it at runtime no > more than you might need access to an instance of llvm::TargetMachine. Maybe I don't understand the

On Nov 26, 2007, at 13:27, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: > 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. Yep! There are no bindings for the JIT (just for codegen), but it has

On May 16, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > > Am Freitag, den 16.05.2008, 06:54 -0700 schrieb Chris Lattner: >> On May 13, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: >> >>> On May 13, 2008, at 18:28, Dan Gohman wrote: >>> >>> I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have a flag on loads to mark >>> them as immutable. A flag from the