similar to: [LLVMdev] Reading recommendations?

On Friday 23 January 2009 10:51:53 Michael Schuerig wrote: > My interest is mainly in using LLVM as the code generator for dynamic > and/or functional languages. Are any of the LLVM-related[1] > publications or other papers/books particularly recommended for this > purpose? You may be interested in the new series of OCaml Journal articles about the creation of compilers for

>On Sunday 14 June 2009 14:09:33 Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Florian Weimer<fw at deneb.enyo.de> wrote: >> > Is this really a problem for MLton? I think you only get less precise >> > alias analysis, and that's it. >> >> Correct. However, I want a fair comparison between LLVM performance >> and the native x86

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!) 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 that would be generically useful:

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 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 Tuesday 16 June 2009 15:44:04 Aaron Gray wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > >Even if this puts LLVM at an unfair disadvantage, I think you will find > >that > >LLVM will thrash MLton's current x86 backend anyway. > > > >I did some benchmarking on HLVM and found that it was often several times > >faster than OCaml when the GC is not the bottleneck: > >

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

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

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

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

On Sunday 25 November 2007 12:23, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On 2007-11-24, at 21:58, Jon Harrop wrote: > > - Garbage collection tuned for functional programming > > http://llvm.org/docs/GarbageCollection.html > > I've been doing some interesting work on this front. Getting Lattner- > cycles to have it reviewed and integrated is probably the biggest > challenge; LLVM

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

I'm currently going through the LLVM OCaml bindings tutorial in preparation for using LLVM in my own project. While the tutorial is very helpful, it was somewhat hard to start due to the fact that I plan on using ocamllex and ocmalyacc and the tutorial hand rolls their own lexer and parser. I have managed to adapt almost all of the tutorial code into using ocamllex and ocamlyacc (the only

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 can be useful. Our common requirement for student is to submit proposal to LLVM Developers

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

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

As I understand it, first-class structs will allow structs to be passed as function arguments and returned as results (i.e. multiple return values) instead of passing pointers to structs. However, the GEP instruction only handles pointer types. So I do not understand how you will be able to extract the fields of a struct when it is received as a value type. Will the GEP instruction be altered

Hi guys, first of all let me say "hello" to everyone. Its the firt message for me in this list and I'm pretty happy that I'll be able to finally start working with LLVM. I've a question for you all if you can help me: a few years ago I've implemented a simple VM for a language we're using in my company. The VM JIT compiles a simple bytecode and executes it.

On Nov 25, 2007, at 11:49, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Sunday 25 November 2007 12:23, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> On 2007-11-24, at 21:58, Jon Harrop wrote: >> >>> - Exceptions >> >> http://llvm.org/docs/ExceptionHandling.html >> >> LLVM's exception support is tuned toward DWARF "zero-cost >> exceptions," i.e. C++ exception

On Nov 25, 2007, at 2:00 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > Ok. Might as well start by reusing as much as possible. Exceptions > are very > common in OCaml though. Is my 6x result a fair quantitative estimate > of how > much faster exceptions could be make in this system for my compiler > if it > were customized? The idea behind the implementation of C++ exceptions is that C++