similar to: [LLVMdev] OCaml bindings to LLVM

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Jon Harrop <jonathandeanharrop at googlemail.com> wrote: > 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? What is the signature of the function you are

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

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 Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Jon Harrop <jonathandeanharrop at googlemail.com> wrote: > I think your new OCaml tutorials and the original C++ ones are absolutely > brilliant! Thanks Jon. I'm sorry I missed this message. Now that you've had some more experience with llvm, would you be interested in adding to the doc some performance and GC stuff? I haven't personally

Hello, [Using LLVM r155315, according to `svn log | head`] I am experimenting with programatically building and jitting functions in a module, and I seem to be coming across a crash in some generated code. Using the llvm-c interface I build up the module which dumps like this: ; ModuleID = 'MyModule' target datalayout = "i686-apple-darwin11" target triple =

Attached are updated LLVM-OCaml Bindings Tutorial from Chris Wailes. (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-April/021804.html) We changed them to work with the latest APIs(LLVM2.6 and the latest LLVM from SVN). Does anyone know if there is any realistic project using LLVM-OCaml Bindings? How is the performance? Jianzhou -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

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

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

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

Someone is trying to work on HLVM with me but they're hitting a problem that we have not been able to resolve. Specifically, GCC seems to be performing some kind of sanity check for "stack smashing" and is calling abort because it is unhappy with something that the code is doing. However, I am not sure what and cannot reproduce the problem. The stack trace they have given me is:

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 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 Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Jon Harrop wrote: >> is under constant flux though. If you wanted to do this, it would be >> very reasonable to just cons up some C code and send it through the clang >> parser. Clang works great in a JIT environment. > > Great! Sounds like CIL should do the trick: > > http://manju.cs.berkeley.edu/cil/ Huh? -Chris --

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

It was the return type which was i64. I changed it also to my abi_int_size and it works now. I have to take care of a few other type translations, but it looks like MCJIT is working now. Thank you. On 08/11/13 18:12, Yaron Keren wrote: > Something must be wrong with the Function Type. Try to debug into > runFunction to see which if condition fails. > Just a guess, if this is on 64

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 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 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

Chapters 3 and 4 are now in subversion: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/docs/tutorial/OCamlLangImpl3.html?view=co http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/docs/tutorial/OCamlLangImpl4.html?view=co These modules add support for codegen and jitting. Control structures are next :)

Hi David, I'm not certain, but to me the "LLVMSetTarget(module, "i686-apple-darwin11");" line looks suspicious. I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of how target triples get handled, but it looks to me like that's requesting 32-bit code. I think that if you omit that line completely then the target will be inferred from the execution environment. My best