similar to: [LLVMdev] Comments about bug 7591

Another quick question. In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). Is that for back-compatibility to support OCaml < 3.10.0? On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Another quick question. > In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when > ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). > Is that for back-compatibility to support OCaml < 3.10.0? At the time, we were still supporting 3.09. It sounds like everyone's

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> Another quick question. >> In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when >> ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). >> Is that for

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > At the code below from > ./bindings/ocaml/executionengine/executionengine_ocaml.c, > we create an OCaml Variant from C. It is from 2.6, the latest 2.7 has > the same code. > > Line 240 Option = alloc(1, 1) assigns tag1 to the 'some' constructor. > In term of

Hello Jianzhou, On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > Does 2.8 release plan to change anything in Ocaml bindings? > http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#whatsnew does not list any > relevant features. I usually wait until around nowish before a release to sync llvm-c and the ocaml bindings. I'll start the process.

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hello, > > How does LLVM release deal with users' changings, and consider them as > a patch? But it would be very appreciated if you can review my > bindings to see if they are well-designed. > > Thanks You can just attach it here. In the future you could either file a bug report or

Hi, At the code below from ./bindings/ocaml/executionengine/executionengine_ocaml.c, we create an OCaml Variant from C. It is from 2.6, the latest 2.7 has the same code. Line 240 Option = alloc(1, 1) assigns tag1 to the 'some' constructor. In term of http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/manual032.html, I think the 'some' should have a tag 0. We dont have a runtime error for

Hi, Does 2.8 release plan to change anything in Ocaml bindings? http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#whatsnew does not list any relevant features. 2.7 added 'operand' that can access each operand from a value. external operand : llvalue -> int -> llvalue = "llvm_operand" Does this binding also expose a primitive to return how many operands a given value has? I need

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello list, > > Since reading the kaleidoscope tutorial I have decided to play around with creating a language I've had in the back of my mind for some time.  I would prefer not to write the front end in c or c++ though if it can be avoided.  I read online that the ocaml bindings are

On Wednesday 24 February 2010 13:26:33 Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > 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? > > I meant the OCaml bindings let OCaml call existing

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > 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? I meant the OCaml bindings let OCaml call existing C++ LLVM routines, such as creating an execution engine, JIT-ing a function with existing JIT or

This patch cleans up the code so that it formats nicely with ocamldoc. It does not yet hook into the build system, though. --- bindings/ocaml/analysis/llvm_analysis.mli | 21 +- bindings/ocaml/bitreader/llvm_bitreader.mli | 13 +- bindings/ocaml/bitwriter/llvm_bitwriter.mli | 11 +- .../ocaml/executionengine/llvm_executionengine.mli | 118 ++--

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

Hello list, Since reading the kaleidoscope tutorial I have decided to play around with creating a language I've had in the back of my mind for some time. I would prefer not to write the front end in c or c++ though if it can be avoided. I read online that the ocaml bindings are distributed with llvm but are not always as up to date as the c or c++ bindings. Is this (still) the case? Is

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 Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language > reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and > atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM 3.0? Hopefully, yes; the implementation is in progress. -Eli

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> In

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language >> reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and >> atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM

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 Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> In