similar to: [LLVMdev] The OCaml Journal: first article on LLVM

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 >

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 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 Wednesday 24 February 2010 13:26:33 Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > 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

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 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

On Tuesday 18 March 2008 20:17:52 Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, Everyone > > LLVM recently was approved to take part in Google Summer of Code 2008. > We welcome everyone to apply for this program. > > The list of ideas for (possible) projects is located at > http://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html. Surely you can suggest any other > project, if you feel, that it definitely

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

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 2008-09-05, at 23:26, Jon Harrop wrote: > 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

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 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 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

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!) >

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 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 Thursday 18 February 2010 20:51:40 Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > I'm in the process of finishing up the ocaml llvm bindings, and I had > some last minute questions before we code freeze: > > 1. What version of ocaml is everyone using, and how old of an ocaml > version do you need to support? I'm on OCaml 3.11.1 but I have no preferences. > 2. Would it be alright if I

I'm still meddling with different ways to exploit LLVM's awesome JIT compilation capabilities from OCaml. Although I've managed to get minimal compilers up and running with relatively little effort, I can't help but think that I'm spending a significant amount of time reinventing the C front-end. Would it make sense to have higher-level OCaml bindings to the current CLang

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:

On Sunday 25 November 2007 22:16, Eric Christopher wrote: > That said, I don't know much about OCaml and so don't know if this > philosophy fits the standard OCaml programming style. If throw/catch/etc are > meant to be normal path of execution then a small cost up front in, for > example, try blocks could easily speed up execution later when you hit the > throw.