similar to: [LLVMdev] HLVM documentation

I have been working on a high-level virtual machine built upon LLVM since Christmas 2008 and just released the first working version: http://forge.ocamlcore.org/projects/hlvm/ This alpha release of HLVM provides: . Unit, bool, int and float primitive types. . Tuples (as first-class structs). . Homogeneous array type. . Boxed value type. . Function pointers. . Generic printing. . Full tail

What happened to the HLVM project? I understand it was intended to be a high-level VM specifically for dynamic languages and this post indicates that it was integrated into the LLVM project last year: http://www.nabble.com/NEWS:-HLVM-merges-with-LLVM-td9627113.html But I cannot find any code in LLVM that looks like it would have come from HLVM. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy

The HLVM project is a high-level VM optimized for scientific computing: http://www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/hlvm/ I implemented the first-working version of a garbage collector capable of collecting from threads that run in parallel in November. Initial performance was awful due to the overhead of accessing thread-local data via POSIX pthreads. I just completed optimizing HLVM so

The (new) HLVM project is continuing to improve and I have graphed and analysed some performance-related data. Beating OCaml on numerical performance using LLVM turned out to be quite easy on x86: http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/performance-ocaml-vs-hlvm-beta-04.html This was achieved using a single optimization pass in HLVM (unrolling) and none of LLVM's own IR optimization

HLVM is a garbage collected virtual machine built upon LLVM: http://forge.ocamlcore.org/projects/hlvm/ The development of HLVM was described in a series of three OCaml Journal articles that turned out to be among our most popular. Consequently, we have decided to run another series of related articles that build upon this foundation in order to develop complete compilers. The first article

I have committed the changes to HLVM that bring it up to date with respect to the new LLVM 2.6 release: http://hlvm.forge.ocamlcore.org/ This required handling of llcontexts and the injection of a call to the new Llvm_executionengine.initialize_native_target function (that is undocumented) *before* the JIT EE is created, otherwise LLVM resorts to the LLVM interpreter which breaks at

To illustrate the value of value types to the OCaml community I recently did a couple of benchmarks. The first was similar to a hash table and stores key-value pairs unboxed in an array: http://groups.google.com/group/fa.caml/msg/8430ebdb687b9268 The second is the hailstone benchmark that the Haskell guys found gave huge performance improvements when using LLVM from GHC:

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

>From a cursory glance, it looks like something is messing with the stack canarys. Probably a stack buffer overflow. On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > 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

Hi Jon, I've read your articles about HLVM, and that was one of the reasons that convinced me to try out LLVM. Actually my VM has been implemented in C++, but as long as it is not extremely complex, I might port it to OCaml that sounds more compact for this kind of programs. Did you find any significant performance loss when using OCaml over C++ ? Runtime performance is quite

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: > >

I'd love to read this article, but I can't justify paying to register. Will it become a 'freely available' article at any point soon? Thanks On Jan 25, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > 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 >

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 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 Saturday 04 April 2009 09:20:21 Gabriele Farina wrote: > - generate IR from my complier; > - build a VM that converts at runtime my bytecode to IR and executes it; > > I largely prefer the second option because it would be great if I can > continue to use to old programs without having to recompile them. > > Which approach do you suggest ? are there any alternatives ?

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 Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: (...) > But I cannot find any code in LLVM that looks like it would have come from > HLVM. Don't know about the status of the project, but the code seems to be here: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/ (in directory "hlvm") Regards, Kevin André

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 codegen. If I don't

On Thursday 19 February 2009 19:32:14 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On 2009-02-19, at 14:00, Jon Harrop wrote: > > I'm toying with benchmarks on my HLVM and am unable to get any > > performance improvement from optimization passes. I simply copied > > the use of PassManager from the Kaleidoscope tutorial: > > > > Any idea what I might be doing

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Harrop" <jon at ffconsultancy.com> To: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: [LLVMdev] SSE examples > > Does anyone have any LLVM IR examples implementing things using the > instructions for SSE, like complex arithmetic or 3D vector-matrix stuff? > I don't have any examples... >