similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] Prefer to use *.opt ocaml executables as they are more efficient.

I noticed that the ocaml compilation isn't using the .opt executables if they're available. We might gain a slight optimization in ocaml compile time by optionally using them with this patch. --- autoconf/configure.ac | 18 +++++ configure | 195 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 2 files changed, 188 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) -------------- next part

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > Please submit your patches as attachments; these fail to apply. How odd. I was able to apply the patch I sent you using just "patch -p0 < 2a33a0870af02af3d1b3bd767b36637f434615a2.diff" after downloading the patch I sent from the list. I did attach it using the "inline"

Another quick question. In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). Is that for back-compatibility to support OCaml < 3.10.0? On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at

This patch cleans up the code so that it formats nicely with ocamldoc. It does not yet hook into the build system, though. --- bindings/ocaml/analysis/llvm_analysis.mli | 21 +- bindings/ocaml/bitreader/llvm_bitreader.mli | 13 +- bindings/ocaml/bitwriter/llvm_bitwriter.mli | 11 +- .../ocaml/executionengine/llvm_executionengine.mli | 118 ++--

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:53 AM, George Giorgidze <giorgidze at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Erick, > > Can you make the following functions available in llvm-c. > > createStandardFunctionPasses > createStandardModulePasses > createStandardLTOPasses > > Thanks in advance, George This is a little tricky, so I need some advice from the community. First off, I'm

Hi, Does 2.8 release plan to change anything in Ocaml bindings? http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#whatsnew does not list any relevant features. 2.7 added 'operand' that can access each operand from a value. external operand : llvalue -> int -> llvalue = "llvm_operand" Does this binding also expose a primitive to return how many operands a given value has? I need

Hello, I'm interested in the OCaml bindings, but I've been digging through them and it doesn't seem possible to actually write a transformation with them. Specifically, there are a lot of functions to build each type of instruction, but there doesn't seem to be any way to query an llvalue and determine what kind of instruction it is. Is there something that I am missing? Thank

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Gregory Malecha <gmalecha at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, Hello Gregory, > I'm interested in the OCaml bindings, but I've been digging through them and > it doesn't seem possible to actually write a transformation with them. > Specifically, there are a lot of functions to build each type of > instruction, but there doesn't seem

--- bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml | 2 +- bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.mli | 2 +- bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm_ocaml.c | 2 +- include/llvm-c/Core.h | 32 +++++++++++++++++++------------- 4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 316a84e85ed2363551149e65a227c8e7c8192624.diff Type:

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 Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > At the code below from > ./bindings/ocaml/executionengine/executionengine_ocaml.c, > we create an OCaml Variant from C. It is from 2.6, the latest 2.7 has > the same code. > > Line 240 Option = alloc(1, 1) assigns tag1 to the 'some' constructor. > In term of

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Another quick question. > In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when > ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). > Is that for back-compatibility to support OCaml < 3.10.0? At the time, we were still supporting 3.09. It sounds like everyone's

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> Another quick question. >> In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when >> ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). >> Is that for

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hello, > > How does LLVM release deal with users' changings, and consider them as > a patch? But it would be very appreciated if you can review my > bindings to see if they are well-designed. > > Thanks You can just attach it here. In the future you could either file a bug report or

Hi, At the code below from ./bindings/ocaml/executionengine/executionengine_ocaml.c, we create an OCaml Variant from C. It is from 2.6, the latest 2.7 has the same code. Line 240 Option = alloc(1, 1) assigns tag1 to the 'some' constructor. In term of http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/manual032.html, I think the 'some' should have a tag 0. We dont have a runtime error for

Hello Jianzhou, On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > Does 2.8 release plan to change anything in Ocaml bindings? > http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#whatsnew does not list any > relevant features. I usually wait until around nowish before a release to sync llvm-c and the ocaml bindings. I'll start the process.

Your message dated Sun, 02 Mar 2014 18:42:06 +0000 with message-id <E1WKBKw-0004SD-Mw at franck.debian.org> and subject line Bug#740517: Removed package(s) from unstable has caused the Debian Bug report #710650, regarding xen-api: FTBFS: gcc: error: /home/blank/debian/xen/releases/xen/xen-4.2.1/debian/build/build-utils_amd64/tools/ocaml/libs/xc/../../../../tools/libxc/libxenctrl.so: No such

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 Nov 29, 2007, at 1:24, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > int x = ... > try { > x++; > foo(); > > use (x); > > } catch (...) { > print x; > } > > Because the 'throw' doesn't restore the callee-save registers as the > stack is unwound, the compiler can't put X in a register across the x+ > + and use of x

On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: >> It only works if values are not held in registers across throws >> though, which is kinda lame ... > > > Though I'm primarily interested in this model only from an > interoperability perspective, reloading the register file for a throw > seems a comparatively small price to pay compared to, say, >