similar to: [LLVMdev] minor issue in LLVM ocamldoc

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/

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

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

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

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-- 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. They're still planning for their C-- backend to be the primary backend for native

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

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 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: >> >>  

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 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

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 Dec 21, 2010, at 00:43, Duncan Sands wrote: > > IIRC the function return value is considered to be the parameter with index 0. > The function itself is considered to be the parameter with index ~0U. Yes, that's what the documentation seems to say is the proper mode for indexing the return parameter, but when I set an attribute on the parameter with index zero, it gets applied to

everyone-- Is it my imagination, or is there no way in LLVM 2.8 (or current trunk) to use the facilities defined in <llvm-c/Core.h> to get or set the optional return parameter attribute on a function value? All the functions in the "Operations on parameters" parameters section actually seem to work only on the function arguments and not the return parameter. Is this intentional?

everyone-- I'm confused about what I'm seeing in LLVM 2.6, and I have a series of related questions. I can see how to apply attributes to function parameters and return values when defining and declaring functions, but I don't see how to do it for function type definitions. It's certainly absent from the OCaml bindings. I'm also not seeing it in the C-langauge bindings over

On Mar 3, 2010, at 20:44, Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > > I've pretty much finished exposing all I wanted to llvm-c and the > ocaml bindings for the soon to be released 2.7. Does anyone need any > other functions exposed before the code freeze on the 7th? Oh hey... I remember now. There is one thing I probably won't get around to doing myself until after the code freeze. (*

everyone-- My build of LLVM-GCC from top-of-trunk sources is failing with the assertion in ARMISelTargetLowering at line 667, in LowerRET, where it says "Do not know how to return this many arguments!" This happens when the cross-compiler attempts to build _muldc3 for libgcc2. The more I have investigated this problem, them more convinced I have become that this isn't a

james woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org> writes: > p.s. The Mercurial subrepositories feature is loads better than git > submodules and it's built into the tool. But never mind that. Just go > with Git and don't look back. Nobody ever got fired for buying from > the market leader. I don't use submodules enough to be a good juge, but my understanding is that Git's