similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM OCaml Tutorial

2009/4/13 Chris Wailes <chris.wailes at gmail.com>: > 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

On Tuesday 14 April 2009 01:29:44 Chris Wailes wrote: > I have managed to adapt almost all of the tutorial code into using ocamllex > and ocamlyacc (the only thing I'm missing is the ability to assign > precendence to user defined binary and unary operators), and was wondering > if ther would be an interest in adding my code as supplimental material. Yes! I thought it was a bit of

> > I'm happy to apply any patches :) Even better if you wanted to extend > the tutorial to support things like garbage collection. As I go along in my project and explore these features I might be willing to produce code for additional chapters but I don't think I have time to dedicate to it now. What was the problem? I just tested it out on fedora 10 and it worked > after

Attached are alternative the files for chapters 1-7 that use ocamlyacc and ocamllex. I have cleaned them up and debugged them as best I can but I may have missed something, so any comments on them would be great. Also, the LLVM-OCaml bindings are messed up in Fedora 10 (some of the binary files point to their origonal build directory) so I had to put in a dirty hack in the Makefile. I left in

On Wednesday 22 April 2009 12:15:09 Chris Wailes wrote: > That is perfectly understandable. My problem was that I had never seen the > stream syntax before. While I'm no OCaml master, I have used it for a > while and so it might be that other people coming to the tutorial may have > the same experience. This page may be of help:

On Sunday 25 November 2007 05:28, Aaron Gray wrote: > > On Sunday 25 November 2007 03:42, Christopher Lamb wrote: > >> Try this google query. I know there's been some discussion/work on > >> OCaml and LLVM. > >> > >> site:lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev OCaml interface > > > > I just rediscovered the OCaml bindings in bindings/ocaml

On Sunday 25 November 2007 03:42, Christopher Lamb wrote: > Try this google query. I know there's been some discussion/work on > OCaml and LLVM. > > site:lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev OCaml interface I just rediscovered the OCaml bindings in bindings/ocaml (rather than the ones in test/Bindings/OCaml!). They do indeed look quite complete but I can't find any examples

> On Sunday 25 November 2007 03:42, Christopher Lamb wrote: >> Try this google query. I know there's been some discussion/work on >> OCaml and LLVM. >> >> site:lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev OCaml interface > > I just rediscovered the OCaml bindings in bindings/ocaml (rather than the > ones > in test/Bindings/OCaml!). They do indeed look quite

>> Lexing is the one issue though. > > How do you mean? I think he's observing that a majority of the tutorial code is actually spent on the lexer and parser, not on the llvm-specific pieces. > I'm just fiddling around with it now. The lexer, parser and AST > written using > camlp4 might look something like this in OCaml: Sure, the existing tutorial would be

Here's my translation of the Fibonacci example into OCaml: open Printf open Llvm let build_fib m = let fibf = define_function "fib" (function_type i32_type [| i32_type |]) m in let bb = builder_at_end (entry_block fibf) in let one = const_int i32_type 1 and two = const_int i32_type 2 in let argx = param fibf 0 in set_value_name "AnArg" argx; let

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

Le 02/12/2013 18:05, Mathieu Malaterre a ?crit : > I cannot backport xen-api-libs to an oldstable system. It fails with: > [...] > ocamlfind ocamlc -I ../xml-light2 -I ../stdext -I ../uuid -thread -c > -o threadext.cmi threadext.mli > File "threadext.mli", line 63, characters 9-15: > Error: Syntax error: 'end' expected > File "threadext.mli", line

Hello Vikram, Saturday, September 6, 2003, 9:10:45 PM, you wrote: VSA> For any language with relatively sophisticated syntax and semantic VSA> rules, you will probably need a higher-level representation like an VSA> Abstract Syntax Tree in order to do type-checking and other kinds of VSA> checking. OK, concerning AST -- I see. Thank you. VSA> For OCAML, for example, the

Full_Name: Allan Sims Version: 2.1.0 OS: WinXP Submission from: (NULL) (193.40.25.254) This should not be correct. It seams that first power is applied and then sign. > -2^2 [1] -4

Hello LLVM fathers, 1. "languages, semantic trees" what do you think ideally, do languages implementations based on LLVM need internal semantic tree or they should rather try to use LLVM directly in/after syntax parsing? For languages like C++ the expected answer is "of course we need an internal semantic tree between parsing and LLVM!" But I am still

Package: xen-api-libs I cannot backport xen-api-libs to an oldstable system. It fails with: $ dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -us -uc dpkg-buildpackage: source package xen-api-libs dpkg-buildpackage: source version 0.5.2-3.1 dpkg-buildpackage: source changed by St?phane Glondu <glondu at debian.org> dpkg-buildpackage: host architecture amd64 dpkg-source --before-build xen-api-libs-0.5.2

Dear Debian maintainer, The Debian internationalisation team and the Debian English localisation team will soon begin the review of the debconf templates used in xen-api. This review takes place for all packages that use debconf to interact with users and its aims are: - to improve the use of English in all debconf templates; - to make the wording of debconf templates more consistent; - to

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 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

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