similar to: [LLVMdev] Criticism of garbage collection support in LLVM

And the followup: http://lhc-compiler.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-llvm-probably-wont-replace-c.html On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Mikhail Glushenkov <foldr at codedgers.com> wrote: > > This may be of interest: > > http://lhc-compiler.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-against-cllvm.html > > People implementing a new Haskell compiler explain why LLVM is an > unsuitable target

On Jan 17, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > This may be of interest: > > http://lhc-compiler.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-against-cllvm.html > > People implementing a new Haskell compiler explain why LLVM is an > unsuitable target for them. I find the article, and particularly the preceding one (http://lhc-compiler.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-is-lhc.html ) to be quite

It's nice that he claims it's way too high overhead without any, you know, data. Then again, he also thinks writing a good native code generator isn't that difficult, so .... On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Mikhail Glushenkov <foldr at codedgers.com> wrote: > This may be of interest: > > http://lhc-compiler.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-against-cllvm.html > > People

[Chris asked me to bring this up on the mailing list some time ago, but I couldn't get to it. Sorry for that.] Since the beginning, I used ReST [1] for documenting llvmc, instead of plain HTML that was used historically. In my opinion, ReST is much easier to write and read (in the text editor or on terminal); it can also be used to produce PDFs, man pages or HTML that looks exactly the same

WikiFormatting for code documentation? :-) -scooter On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Mikhail Glushenkov <foldr at codedgers.com>wrote: > [Chris asked me to bring this up on the mailing list some time > ago, but I couldn't get to it. Sorry for that.] > > Since the beginning, I used ReST [1] for documenting llvmc, instead of > plain HTML that was used historically. In my

Hi, I am trying to build my own llvmc plugin, but somehow, the llvm makefiles do not pick up the plugin in the llvmc/plugins directory anymore in a recent (r129445) svn checkout. According to the tutorial (http://llvm.org/docs/CompilerDriverTutorial.html): $ cd tools/llvmc $ cp -r example/Simple plugins/Simple $ make LLVMC_BASED_DRIVER_NAME=mygcc LLVMC_BUILTIN_PLUGINS=Simple does not build

Hi Mikhail, > Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists <at> googlemail.com> writes: >> I have not tried as of yet. > > Just compile with `make VERBOSE=1` and then copy, paste & edit > the offending line. Okay >> I don't think Cygwin supports loadable modules anyway. > > Really, Cygwin doesn't allow to produce DLLs? Then I guess I > should make this a

Hi Aaron, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists <at> googlemail.com> writes: > I sent you a _patch_ that disables it on Cygwin for the time being. LLVM > does not load DLL's properly apparently. I would love to get to the bottom > of this at some point. I've just added an --enable-llvmc-dynamic configure option (enabled only on Windows by default). This is based on your

Hi Daniel, Daniel Dunbar <daniel <at> zuster.org> writes: > > Ultimately I think a better API would be to provide a generic class > which represents an executed operating system process, and includes > operations to wait for its completion, redirect its IO, communicate > with it, etc. This would be a big improvement over the current > monolithic function. I agree,

--- include/llvm/System/Program.h | 8 ++++---- lib/System/Unix/Program.inc | 30 +++++++++++++++--------------- 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/llvm/System/Program.h b/include/llvm/System/Program.h index 49de7cf..14f9e9e 100644 --- a/include/llvm/System/Program.h +++ b/include/llvm/System/Program.h @@ -97,12 +97,12 @@ namespace sys { ///

Chris Lattner wrote: > In the end, I consider this to be a yet-another chapter in the > "functional language people don't like LLVM" saga. Yet another counterexample: http://pure-lang.googlecode.com/ LLVM from the ground up, proper tail calls, interactive interpreter, JIT, easy C interface. Works great. :) Without LLVM, I could have never pulled that off in a couple of

Hi Sanjiv, On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Mikhail Glushenkov<the.dead.shall.rise at gmail.com> wrote: > [...] [Sorry, the formatting was a bit off] > The following snippet gives the expected behaviour (not tested, but > you should get the idea): (case (switch_on "O0"), (append_cmd "-disable-opt"), (or (and (switch_on "O1")

Hi Sanjiv, On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Mikhail Glushenkov<the.dead.shall.rise at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sanjiv, > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Mikhail > Glushenkov<the.dead.shall.rise at gmail.com> wrote: >> [...] > > [Sorry, the formatting was a bit off] > >> The following snippet gives the expected behaviour (not tested, but >> you

--- include/llvm/System/Program.h | 14 ++++++++++---- lib/System/Unix/Program.inc | 17 +++++++++-------- lib/System/Win32/Program.inc | 16 +++++++++------- 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/llvm/System/Program.h b/include/llvm/System/Program.h index 14f9e9e..05c73ac 100644 --- a/include/llvm/System/Program.h +++ b/include/llvm/System/Program.h @@

Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > > > 2. Is there anyway to call a C++ hook from inside actions? > > for example > > (actions (case > > (not_empty "Wl,"), (append_cmd "$CALL(Myhook)" ))) > > Not yet, this is something I'm working on right now. > Hi Mikhail, Did you get a chance to do something about this? > > > BTW, I've

Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi Sanjiv, > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Mikhail > Glushenkov<the.dead.shall.rise at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Sanjiv, >> >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Mikhail >> Glushenkov<the.dead.shall.rise at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> [...] >>> >> [Sorry, the formatting was a

Hi, On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Sanjiv Gupta<sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com> wrote: > Is the patch below ok? > > Index: LLVMCConfigurationEmitter.cpp > =================================================================== > --- LLVMCConfigurationEmitter.cpp    (revision 80668) > +++ LLVMCConfigurationEmitter.cpp    (working copy) > @@ -1141,6 +1141,7 @@ >          

Hi Mikhail, On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Joel E. Denny <jdenny <at> etinternational.com> writes: > > Is it intended that llvmc should search PATH for llc? For example, this > > means that llvmc 2.7 can invoke llc 2.8: > > [...] > > This is fixed in 2.8+ - llvmc now searches the directory it resides in first. I just built r117553 from

On Jan 17, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Albert Graef wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> In the end, I consider this to be a yet-another chapter in the >> "functional language people don't like LLVM" saga. > > Yet another counterexample: > > http://pure-lang.googlecode.com/ Hey, this is incredibly cool. I had never heard of pure, nice work! Would you mind writing a

Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi Sanjiv, > > 2009/6/18 Sanjiv Gupta <sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com>: > >> Hi Mikhail, >> Thanks for your wonderful help so far. I have few more questions to ask: >> >> How do I modify the driver to pick tools from where the driver itself >> resides, rather than from the PATH? >> Do I need to write some C++ code