similar to: [LLVMdev] Ocaml bindings in 2.8

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

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.

(ccing llvmdev) Hi Ranjit! I only ported Chris's tutorial and Gordon did the vast majority of the bindings, so they deserve most of the praise. I believe there are techniques for walking over the CFG. You can load up code using Llvm_bitreader, use things like Llvm.iter_globals, Llvm.iter_functions, and Llvm.iter_instrs to walk over the module, and write out a new llmodule using

Attached are updated LLVM-OCaml Bindings Tutorial from Chris Wailes. (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-April/021804.html) We changed them to work with the latest APIs(LLVM2.6 and the latest LLVM from SVN). Does anyone know if there is any realistic project using LLVM-OCaml Bindings? How is the performance? Jianzhou -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

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 Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > There are at least two other significant users of LLVM's OCaml bindings, > AFAIK. I'm writing an llvm backend/repl for felix, but it's pretty early. > My only gripe with LLVM's OCaml bindings is the way an error caught on the > LLVM side causes my program to die in a way that the

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

Hi, revision 111418 binding/ocaml/llvm/llvm_ocaml.c /* llvalue -> int -> llvalue */ CAMLprim value llvm_params(LLVMValueRef Fn, value Index) { value Params = alloc(LLVMCountParams(Fn), 0); LLVMGetParams(Fn, (LLVMValueRef *) Op_val(Params)); return Params; } does not match the interface at binding/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml external params : llvalue -> llvalue array =

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

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

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 the invariants, then >> use the verifier as a

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 the definition of 'monotonic' ordering, >>> ... "If an address is written

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 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 all, http://www.llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#BuildRecType suggests us to define recursive types via opaque and refine. Since LLVM has structural types, %rt = type { %rt* } and %rt1 = type { %rt* } should be same structurally. I tested the following code, %rt = type { %rt* } %rt1 = type { %rt* } define i32 @main() nounwind { entry: %0 = alloca %rt ;

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > The current memory model section ends with the following discussions: > > "Note that in cases where none of the atomic intrinsics are used, this > model places only one restriction on IR transformations on top of what > is required for single-threaded execution: introducing a store to a

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

Hi, Some instructions are not implemented in the interpreter. For example, extractvalue, insertvalue, load/store aggregate pointers, bitcast between vectors and ints. Is this only the limitation of the current release? or is there any technical reason that the interpreter has to omit these instructions. -- Jianzhou

Hi all, I am trying to compile a high-level imperative OOP-like language to the LLVM IR. Do we have any "generic" way of translating a non-SSA form to the LLVM IR's SSA? There are lots of LLVM front-ends now. Do they do such translation individually? or there is some common non-SSA IR that we can translate to, and can be converted to the LLVM IR automatically? I did not find such