similar to: [LLVMdev] Matching struct layouts.

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> > If this is an arbitrary struct, it can be quite tricky. Do you have >> > to worry about bitfields and variable sized fields (for example a >> > variable length array at the end)? What about unions? >> >> There are no bitfields, but it does have a variable length array at

> > If this is an arbitrary struct, it can be quite tricky. Do you have > > to worry about bitfields and variable sized fields (for example a > > variable length array at the end)? What about unions? > > There are no bitfields, but it does have a variable length array at the end. > There are no unions. You could use llvm-gcc to convert the struct to an LLVM type.

"Mahadevan R" <mdevan.foobar at gmail.com> writes: >> You could use llvm-gcc to convert the struct to an LLVM type. >> Otherwise, it wouldn't be too hard to convert the struct by >> hand as long as it doesn't have any exotic types in it. A >> VLA at the end (with element type T) is currently represented >> by placing a field of type T at the

Hi Mahadevan, This looks very nice. Is there a good reason to maintain this outside of the LLVM source tree, or is this something you would like to see come in tree? - Daniel On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Mahadevan R <mdevan.foobar at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Thought you might be interested: > > llvm-py 0.6 was released a couple of days back. This release is

Hi all, Thought you might be interested: llvm-py 0.6 was released a couple of days back. This release is compatible with LLVM 2.7. Check it out at http://www.mdevan.org/llvm-py/. llvm-py has it's own mailing list, at http://groups.google.com/group/llvm-py. Regards, -Mahadevan. (author of llvm-py)

> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:42:49 -0800 > From: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [ANN] llvm-py 0.5 released. > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Message-ID: <B7A557A7-587A-478A-AB94-B03FDA6254A8 at apple.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > > On Nov 22,

Hi. Version 0.5 of llvm-py, Python bindings for LLVM, has been released. This version supports (only) LLVM 2.4. New instructions of LLVM 2.4 (vicmp, vfcmp, insertvalue, extractvalue) are available. Home page: http://mdevan.nfshost.com/llvm-py/ Feedback welcome. Thanks & Regards, -Mahadevan.

Hi, While playing around on the LLVM, I tried this code: int sum(int n) { if (n == 0) return 0; else return n + sum(n-1); } and this is what "llvm-gcc -O2" gave me: define i32 @sum(i32 %n) nounwind { entry: %tmp215 = icmp eq i32 %n, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1] br i1 %tmp215, label %bb10, label %tailrecurse.bb10_crit_edge tailrecurse.bb10_crit_edge: ; preds =

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Mahadevan R <mdevan.foobar at gmail.com> wrote: > int sum(int n) > { > return n + sum(n-1); > } > > it generates this: > > define i32 @sum(i32 %n) nounwind { > entry: > %tmp2 = add i32 %n, -1 ; <i32> [#uses=1] > %tmp3 = tail call i32 @sum( i32 %tmp2 ) nounwind ; <i32>

Hi, The LLVM Assembly Language Reference [1] incorrectly states that the prefix used for dll{import,export} is _imp__; it is actually __imp_. The attached patch fixes this. Thanks & Regards, -Mahadevan. [1] file:///home/mdevan/llvm/docs/LangRef.html#linkage -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: doc-dllimport-prefix.patch Type: text/x-diff Size:

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Mahadevan R wrote: >> While going through the list of intrinsics in Intrinsics.td, I found >> that it does not match the list given in Language Reference [1]. Does >> this mean that they are not to be used / don't work? Or is it just >> that the documentation is

Hi all, I'd like to announce the availability of Python bindings for LLVM. It is built over llvm-c, and currently exposes enough APIs to build an in-memory IR (and dump it!). It needs LLVM 2.3 latest and Python 2.5 (2.4 should be sufficient, but I haven't tested). Tested only on Linux/i386. Would love to hear your comments. [Needless to say, it's all work in progress, but mostly it

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Mahadevan R <mdevan.foobar at gmail.com> wrote: > 1) > Are the C bindings complete? That is, is there some part of the C++ API > that is not exposed by the C API? Nope, there's still a lot that's not done. Patches are always welcome :) We've got enough in subversion to implement the Kaleidoscope tutorial though. > 2) > Do

> From: OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> > There could just as easily be language bindings between C++ and > Python, he chose the C bindings probably just because they were > easier, but they are most certainly not required. I know that is the > case in a few other scripting languages as well. He ( I :-) ) chose llvm-c based on the thread starting here:

Hi LLVM members, I have been working to make target independent memory layout for struct type(Aggregate type) in my team. I think that struct type has different memory layouts according to each target system in current LLVM. To implement target dependent concept for struct type, Frist, I have been implementing common type for struct type on bitcode at compilation time using llvm-gcc and then

On May 10, 2008, at 05:44, Mahadevan R wrote: > I'd like to announce the availability of Python bindings for LLVM. > > It is built over llvm-c, and currently exposes enough APIs to build an > in-memory IR (and dump it!). It needs LLVM 2.3 latest and Python 2.5 > (2.4 should be sufficient, but I haven't tested). Tested only on > Linux/i386. > > Would love to hear

> > But can I assume that both gcc and LLVM will layout the structure > > in the same way (member alignment, padding)? > > llvm-gcc and gcc follows the same platform C ABI. So the answer to your > question is "yes". That's not entirely true. For example it assumes the user is not using attributes to create types with unusual alignments or sizes. Most of the

Hi, On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2008, at 7:54 AM, Mahadevan R wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Just wondering -- shouldn't all (C linkage) functions exposed by >> LLVM-C (and written in C++) be catching std::exception (or "...") to >> prevent exceptions being passed on to C callers?

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:07:35 +0530, Mahadevan R wrote: >> Now to compare it in detail with the much smaller program I've got and >> maybe I'll figure out what's wrong with my call to >> ExecutionEngine::create. > > That call is perfectly valid, actually. It works for me when linked > with: > > g++ -o b b.o `llvm-config --ldflags` `llvm-config --libs

Hm. I may misunderstand, but I'm not sure that's an improvement over the problem you're trying to solve. How about something like this? (Please forgive any accent; I don't speak snake fluently.) class Pet(object): @staticmethod def new(): # Create a 'free' pet. It can later become owned, but not to more than one owner. return