similar to: [LLVMdev] a typo in OCaml bindings

On Dec 21, 2010, at 11:33, james woodyatt wrote: > 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

Hi All, Here is the code from bindings/ocam/executionengine/executionengine_ocaml.c. /* llvalue -> GenericValue.t array -> ExecutionEngine.t -> GenericValue.t */ CAMLprim value llvm_ee_run_function(LLVMValueRef F, value Args, LLVMExecutionEngineRef EE) { unsigned NumArgs; LLVMGenericValueRef Result, *GVArgs; unsigned I; NumArgs =

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 Erick, Thanks, this looks good. Can you please resubmit this patch, and the others, as an attachment? On Mar 4, 2008, at 03:19, Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > --- > bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml | 2 +- > bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.mli | 2 +- > bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm_ocaml.c | 2 +- > include/llvm-c/Core.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++ > +-------------

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

Hi David, I'm not certain, but to me the "LLVMSetTarget(module, "i686-apple-darwin11");" line looks suspicious. I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of how target triples get handled, but it looks to me like that's requesting 32-bit code. I think that if you omit that line completely then the target will be inferred from the execution environment. My best

Hello, [Using LLVM r155315, according to `svn log | head`] I am experimenting with programatically building and jitting functions in a module, and I seem to be coming across a crash in some generated code. Using the llvm-c interface I build up the module which dumps like this: ; ModuleID = 'MyModule' target datalayout = "i686-apple-darwin11" target triple =

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 Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > After some experimentation, I'd prefer the closed system. LLVM has some type > peculiarities like the commonality between CallInst and InvokeInst. I find > that the closed type system lets me express such constraints more naturally. > Expressing these constraints explicitly in the open

--- bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml | 2 +- bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.mli | 2 +- bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm_ocaml.c | 2 +- include/llvm-c/Core.h | 32 +++++++++++++++++++------------- 4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 316a84e85ed2363551149e65a227c8e7c8192624.diff Type:

Hi, I'm attempting to use MCJIT with the C interface with llvm-3.9.0, and it doesn't seem to work. This code is derived from Paul Smith's example code: int main(int argc, char const* argv[]) { LLVMModuleRef mod = LLVMModuleCreateWithName("my_module"); LLVMTypeRef param_types[] = {LLVMInt32Type(), LLVMInt32Type()}; LLVMTypeRef ret_type =

Hi everyone,                    I am new in this field. I am trying to install LLVM in my 32-bit Windows XP. Can anyone please give a to do list for installing LLVM in my machine. When trying to build LLVM, I get the following error:    llvm[3]: Compiling llvm_ocaml.c for Debug build In file included from D:\Program Files\Objective Caml\lib/caml/misc.h:24,                  from D:\Program

On Thursday 18 February 2010 20:51:40 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? I'm on OCaml 3.11.1 but I have no preferences. > 2. Would it be alright if I

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

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? 2. Would it be alright if I renamed some functions? Module providers are being removed for 2.7. I can keep the old functions around, but I'd prefer to keep the API clean.

On Monday 26 November 2007 20:05, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On Nov 26, 2007, at 14:18, Jon Harrop wrote: > > On Monday 26 November 2007 16:21, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> Unfortunately, even if the bindings were more strongly typed, it > >> would still be structurally possible to build invalid LLVM code, so > >> you've just got to take care not to violate

Hi, Everyone, I got a error when I try to compile LLVM 2.7, it is located in the ocaml bindings file, showing like: llvm[2]: Compiling llvm_ocaml.c for Release+Asserts build In file included from C:\Objective Caml\lib/caml/misc.h:24, from C:\Objective Caml\lib/caml/alloc.h:23, from /home/leila/llvm/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm_ocaml.c:19: In file included from

On 2007-11-26, at 21:12, Jon Harrop wrote: > Provide a type enumerating the valid terminators and restrict the > last instruction in a block to be a terminator. Something like this: > > type terminator = [ `ret of llvalue | `br of llvalue ] > type instruction = > [ terminator > | `add of llvalue * llvalue > | `sub of llvalue * llvalue ] > type block

I was talking to Gordon on #llvm earlier, and he challenged me with coming up with a way to improve the ocaml binding's type safety. We can't go letting haskell beat us now, can we? I think I got an easy solution with phantom types. For those who don't know what the problem is, the ocaml bindings share one type between whole class branches (like values). This means we need to downcast

I have created the function prototype with the following code: const uintmax_t methodNameSize = 1024; const char methodNameTemplate[] = "llvm.memcpy.p0i%llu.p0i%llu.i%llu"; char methodName[methodNameSize]; // Create the methodName. memset(methodName, 0, methodNameSize); sprintf(methodName, methodNameTemplate, dstSize, srcSize, lengthSize); // Search for the