similar to: [LLVMdev] glasgow haskell appears to be adopting LLVM

On Feb 19, 2010, at 11:33 AM, james woodyatt wrote: > everyone-- > > File this under Advocacy. > > See this thread <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2010-February/018425.html> for more information, but the short summary is that they're deprecating their old "compile to GCC" backend in favor of David Terei's new LLVM backend.

On Feb 19, 2010, at 13:09, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 19, 2010, at 11:33 AM, james woodyatt wrote: >> >> Let us all now give a warm welcome to our new Haskell comrades! > > Very nice, care to add a GHC entry to the LLVM Users page? I'll prepare a patch that could be applied when the merge is formally released by the GHC developers. — j h woodyatt <jhw at

On Friday 19 February 2010 19:33:32 james woodyatt wrote: > Let us all now give a warm welcome to our new Haskell comrades! Hopefully Mono will be next. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Friday 19 February 2010 19:33:32 james woodyatt wrote: > > Let us all now give a warm welcome to our new Haskell comrades! > > Hopefully Mono will be next. > Mono has already used LLVM for various things. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

everyone-- I notice that Llvm.llvm_handle_to_type is actually defined to create a type handle from a type, rather than vice versa as its name would imply. Should I send a patch to change the name of the function to reflect its type better, or should I just lump it? — j h woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org> http://jhw.vox.com/

everyone-- I'm trying to build LLVM-GCC as a cross-compiler for a new target. I've successfully patched binutils, the FSF GCC, LLVM and Clang to build for this new target-- they work fine, but the LLVM-gcc build is failing for me. All my llvm.org sources are tracking the Subversion trunk, but my problem is probably not related to any ongoing churn there. I'm doing something

Just to correct, the GCC back-end isn't being depreciated in favour of the LLVM back-end (as much as I would to claim it was). The GCC back-end has been on the list of things GHC developers wanted to remove for a while now and the larger reason its being done now is that SSE support has recently been added to the native code generator, fixing one of the last advantages the C back-end had.

Hi David, Your paper is linked on an LLVM site, but I can't give you the url as we are currently down for maintenance. If I remember correctly it was under "recent papers" off of the home site. Garrison On Feb 21, 2010, at 18:55, David Terei wrote: > Just to correct, the GCC back-end isn't being depreciated in favour of > the LLVM back-end (as much as I would to claim

On Mar 1, 2010, at 09:56, james woodyatt wrote: > On Mar 1, 2010, at 04:43, Duncan Sands wrote: >> >> Where exactly? I don't see it in the online version. > > See <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#t_function> and look at the second example: > > float (i16 signext, i32 *) * > > Pointer to a function that takes an i16 that should be sign extended

everyone-- I don't know whether this is a bug or not. I'm trying to bootstrap an embedded application and using LLVM tools to generate the assembly code, which I then assemble and link with traditional tools. The bootstrap loader, of course, runs in a very limited environment, and I have to roll my own memcpy() function for it, i.e. there is no kernel, nothing at all, this stuff

everyone-- The OCaml bindings need help again. diff -r a8c05e69647e import/llvm.org/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml --- a/import/llvm.org/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml Fri Dec 25 17:35:09 2009 -0800 +++ b/import/llvm.org/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml Sun Dec 27 11:38:15 2009 -0800 @@ -42,13 +42,18 @@ | External | Available_externally | Link_once + | Link_once_odr | Weak +

On Feb 18, 2010, at 12:51, Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > > I'm in the process of finishing up the ocaml llvm bindings, and I had > some last minute questions before we code freeze: > > 1. What version of ocaml is everyone using, and how old of an ocaml > version do you need to support? Still using OCaml 3.11.1, but will but upgrading to OCaml 3.11.2 around the same time as the

everyone-- Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see how to apply parameter attributes to function return types in either the C-language or OCaml bindings. Can anybody help clue me in? Thanks. — j h woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org> http://jhw.vox.com/

On Mar 1, 2010, at 04:43, Duncan Sands wrote: > [I wrote:] >> >> Nevertheless, the LLVM Language Reference document suggests, in the examples for the Function Types section, that parameter attributes are part of function types. > > Where exactly? I don't see it in the online version. See <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#t_function> and look at the second

james woodyatt wrote: > everyone-- > > I don't know whether this is a bug or not. I assume you're using llvm-gcc? Does it still turn memcpy into llvm.memcpy if you pass llvm-gcc -ffreestanding? If so, that's certainly a bug. Either way, you should be using -ffreestanding! Nick > I'm trying to bootstrap an embedded application and using LLVM tools > to

On Dec 27, 2009, at 11:41 AM, james woodyatt wrote: > everyone-- > > The OCaml bindings need help again. Please attach this as a .patch file and I'd be happy to apply it for you, -Chris > > diff -r a8c05e69647e import/llvm.org/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml > --- a/import/llvm.org/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml Fri Dec 25 17:35:09 2009 -0800 > +++

On Mar 1, 2010, at 20:28, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:20 PM, james woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org> wrote: >> I'm sorry to pester about this, but I was really hoping somebody could straighten me out about this. The Language Reference really does seem to be ambiguous about this, and I'm willing to compose a patch to fix it, but I need to know what the

to me the name implies that it creates a handle to the type given, i guess if you look at it in context of the ocaml conversion functions some people may think otherwise. On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:49 PM, james woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org> wrote: > everyone-- > > I notice that Llvm.llvm_handle_to_type is actually defined to create a type > handle from a type, rather than vice

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:20 PM, james woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org> wrote: > On Mar 1, 2010, at 09:56, james woodyatt wrote: >> On Mar 1, 2010, at 04:43, Duncan Sands wrote: >>> >>> Where exactly?  I don't see it in the online version. >> >> See <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#t_function> and look at the second example: >> >>  

On Feb 21, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Garrison Venn wrote: > Hi David, > > Your paper is linked on an LLVM site, but I can't give you the url as we are > currently down for maintenance. If I remember correctly it was under "recent papers" > off of the home site. It's here: http://llvm.org/pubs/2009-10-TereiThesis.html -Chris > > Garrison > > On Feb 21,