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

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] The OCaml Journal: first article on LLVM"

2009 Feb 01
0
[LLVMdev] OCaml Journal article: Building a Virtual Machine with 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 >
2009 Jan 25
2
[LLVMdev] OCaml Journal article: Building a Virtual Machine with LLVM
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
2010 Feb 24
0
[LLVMdev] C Compiler written in OCaml, Pointers Wanted
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
2010 Feb 28
1
[LLVMdev] C Compiler written in OCaml, Pointers Wanted
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
2007 Nov 26
0
[LLVMdev] [Caml-list] Ocaml(opt) & llvm
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
2010 Feb 24
2
[LLVMdev] C Compiler written in OCaml, Pointers Wanted
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
2008 Mar 18
0
[LLVMdev] Google Summer of Code 2008
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
2010 Feb 17
1
[LLVMdev] LLVM-OCaml Bindings Tutorial (2.6-2.7)
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
2008 Dec 14
1
[LLVMdev] Tail calls from OCaml
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
2008 Sep 08
0
[LLVMdev] OCaml bindings to LLVM
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
2008 Sep 06
4
[LLVMdev] OCaml bindings to LLVM
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
2007 Dec 12
2
[LLVMdev] ocaml binding question
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
2010 Feb 16
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM-OCaml Bindings Tutorial (2.6-2.7)
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
2007 Nov 25
0
[LLVMdev] OCaml
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!) >
2008 Feb 14
2
[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
2008 Sep 20
2
[LLVMdev] first two chapters for the ocaml bindings in svn
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
2010 Feb 18
0
[LLVMdev] ocaml survey
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
2008 Feb 14
2
[LLVMdev] Higher-level OCaml bindings
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
2009 Apr 22
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM OCaml Tutorial
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:
2007 Nov 25
0
[LLVMdev] OCaml and Exceptions
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.