similar to: [LLVMdev] Higher-level OCaml bindings

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

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Jon Harrop wrote: >> is under constant flux though. If you wanted to do this, it would be >> very reasonable to just cons up some C code and send it through the clang >> parser. Clang works great in a JIT environment. > > Great! Sounds like CIL should do the trick: > > http://manju.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/ Huh? -Chris --

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Jon Harrop wrote: > Would it make sense to have higher-level OCaml bindings to the current CLang > front-end to make code generation even easier? > > 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

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 are at least two other significant users of LLVM's OCaml bindings, AFAIK. > How is the performance? Performance

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

I'm having another play with LLVM using the OCaml bindings for a forthcoming OCaml Journal article and I have a couple of remarks: Firstly, I noticed that the execute engine is very slow, taking milliseconds to call a JIT compiled function. Is this an inherent overhead or am I calling it incorrectly or is this something that can be optimized in the OCaml bindings? Secondly, I happened to

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? Several major projects are using OCaml's LLVM bindings to execute non-trivial code via JIT. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

Attached are updated LLVM-OCaml Bindings Tutorial from Chris Wailes. (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-April/021804.html) We changed them to work with the latest APIs(LLVM2.6 and the latest LLVM from SVN). Does anyone know if there is any realistic project using LLVM-OCaml Bindings? How is the performance? Jianzhou -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

Following on from the success of our previous OCaml Journal articles covering LLVM, we have begun a series dedicated to the design and implementation of high-level languages using LLVM. In particular, these new articles are more pragmatic in nature and go beyond describing working compilers to also discuss testing, debugging and the performance of LLVM-based compilers. The first article in

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 Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > There are at least two other significant users of LLVM's OCaml bindings, > AFAIK. I'm writing an llvm backend/repl for felix, but it's pretty early. > My only gripe with LLVM's OCaml bindings is the way an error caught on the > LLVM side causes my program to die in a way that the

On Monday 31 March 2008 09:56:45 Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > The full series of the ocaml tutorial is done! You can find it here: > > http://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/ > > Please let me know if you have any comments, bugs, suggestions, and > etc. I'll send a mail to the ocaml mailing list tomorrow to drum up > some interest from the other ocaml users. I think your new OCaml

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 Tuesday 14 April 2009 01:29:44 Chris Wailes wrote: > I have managed to adapt almost all of the tutorial code into using ocamllex > and ocamlyacc (the only thing I'm missing is the ability to assign > precendence to user defined binary and unary operators), and was wondering > if ther would be an interest in adding my code as supplimental material. Yes! I thought it was a bit of

On Wednesday 12 December 2007 13:39, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > Since that ASTs are by definition language-specific, such should > probably be a separate project because LLVM itself is language-agnostic. Well, I'd like this to factor out commonality from the implementations of all managed languages (everything from C++ to Lisp) so I think it should express a typed language with typical

How do you get a tail call using the OCaml's LLVM API? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

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

Try this google query. I know there's been some discussion/work on OCaml and LLVM. site:lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev OCaml interface On Nov 24, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Hi! > > I just took another look at the LLVM project and it has come along > in leaps > and bounds since I last looked. I've been working through the > (awesome!) >

I'd love to read this article, but I can't justify paying to register. Will it become a 'freely available' article at any point soon? Thanks On Jan 25, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Following on from the success of our previous OCaml Journal articles > covering > LLVM, we have begun a series dedicated to the design and > implementation of >

On Sunday 25 November 2007 03:42, Christopher Lamb wrote: > Try this google query. I know there's been some discussion/work on > OCaml and LLVM. > > site:lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev OCaml interface I just rediscovered the OCaml bindings in bindings/ocaml (rather than the ones in test/Bindings/OCaml!). They do indeed look quite complete but I can't find any examples