similar to: [LLVMdev] Is it possible to write a llvm pass in OCaml?

Dear All, Is it possible to write a llvm pass in OCaml? Is there any API such as runOnModule() in ModulePass, runOnFunction() in FunctionPass in OCaml? I have looked through the tutorial, http://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/OCamlLangImpl1.html, it looks like just a tutorial about "Implementing a language with LLVM" in Objective Caml. Thank you for your help. Best Regards, GUanhua

Hi, 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 make[1]: *** [ocaml/.makeinstall] Error 2 make: *** [install] Error 1 -bw

On 2007-10-02, 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 > make[1]: *** [ocaml/.makeinstall] Error 2 > make: *** [install] Error 1 Bill, All

Erick, I see the problem. The llvm-config linker options are baked into the ocaml library, which is good. But for the execution engine, that link line includes the full paths to some .o files. Those paths come from llvm-config, and they vary before and after installation. (Before install, they point into the source tree as you're seeing.) You could theoretically get working

> 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!) > tutorial and am now really hyped about the project. > > I am particularly interested in using LLVM to write compilers for > OCaml-like > languages in OCaml-like languages. This requires some core functionality

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > After some experimentation, I'd prefer the closed system. LLVM has some type > peculiarities like the commonality between CallInst and InvokeInst. I find > that the closed type system lets me express such constraints more naturally. > Expressing these constraints explicitly in the open

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

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

On Sunday 25 November 2007 20:01, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On Nov 25, 2007, at 11:49, Jon Harrop wrote: > > On Sunday 25 November 2007 12:23, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> If ocamlc is on your path, then 'configure; make; make install' > >> should install the bindings in your ocaml lib. > > > > Right. I hadn't noticed they were already installed

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 Aug 14, 2007, at 3:24 AM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > 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

Jon, >> . Some interface to LLVM from OCaml >> >> What work has already been done on this and similar ideas? What is >> the >> easiest >> way to interface a front-end written in OCaml with an LLVM backend? I've written a compiler front end for a custom language in OCaml which features compilation and an interactive toplevel. Until now I am

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

Pending positive confirmation in http://llvm.org/PR2886, I'd recommend that r57974 and r57976 be pulled into the 2.4 release branch and configure regenerated there. Begin forwarded message: > From: Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> > Date: October 22, 2008 08:40:40 EDT > To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: [llvm-commits] [llvm] r57974 -

Gordon Henriksen wrote: > 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

On Nov 25, 2007, at 11:49, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Sunday 25 November 2007 12:23, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> If ocamlc is on your path, then 'configure; make; make install' >> should install the bindings in your ocaml lib. > > Right. I hadn't noticed they were already installed after llvm "make > install" in: > > /usr/local/lib/ocaml/

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 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

Hi, where can I read more about this? I assume (hope) the lib provides some kind of OCaml bindings? I could not find any trace of it in the 2.1 release source so I guess it's currently SVN only? greetings, Jan On 2. Okt 2007, at 12:22, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On 2007-10-02, at 03:19, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> On Oct 2, 2007, at 00:17, Bill Wendling wrote: >>

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