similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM-C addition: LLVMConvertModuleToXXX

Hi Filip, > What do you guys/girls think about LLVM-C additions that are similar to the > following: as a meta-point, I thought llvm-c was supposed to be a binding, i.e. only contain routines that map directly to existing C++ routines. Here you are adding a bunch of logic that presumably doesn't exist in the C++ library. As such, you should consider first adding a C++ helper function

To get the cpp version, just remove the first line... It just feels to me that the llvm-c version is the unwanted sibling. And I want to change it in a rapid tempo. To a fully equipped alternative. -Filip Sent from my iPad On 16 Sep 2010, at 10:00, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Filip, > >> What do you guys/girls think about LLVM-C additions that are similar

LLVMConvertModuleToC Patch to LLVM-C -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LLVMConvertModuleToCPatch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 3075 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100916/d866557f/attachment.obj> -------------- next part -------------- - Filip

I don't see why not. C is a worthy language, one that I think we should fully support. And by just providing some minor features really limits its usefulness. Right now, at this very instance it isn't usable. Except as a stepping stone to the bigger framework. But thats just my 2 cents. - Filip On 16 Sep 2010, at 19:51, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Sep 16, 2010, at 5:35 AM, F

On Sep 16, 2010, at 5:35 AM, F van der Meeren wrote: > LLVMConvertModuleToC Patch to LLVM-C > > <LLVMConvertModuleToCPatch> > *shrug* One of the things about the C API is that it's a "support forever" sort of thing. Is this kind of thing a big enough use case that we want to have an API specifically for it? -eric

Hello, I have a question concerning llvm-c. I have set up a function that needs to invoke an external method, in a other library. It has the following signature: void* NSFullUserName(void); The void* can be replaced with a i8*, that far I was able to get, but when my call is invoked, the engine gives me the following message: LLVM ERROR: Tried to execute an unknown external function: i8* ()*

I am going to post my first chapter, just to see if it is acceptable. Any feedback is good feedback for me. Filip On 31 Aug 2010, at 17:25, Rajika Kumarasiri wrote: > Most of the documents (html) are generated using rst2html. So I think a patch to the rst file in llvm/tools/llvmc/doc should be fine. > > Rajika > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:59 PM, F van der Meeren

I think it'd be nice to have a ToC describing what you plan to cover in the "hello world" tutorial. I'll take a look at the tutorial in the week end and send feed back. Rajika On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:02 AM, F van der Meeren <llvm-dev at code2develop.com>wrote: > I am going to post my first chapter, just to see if it is acceptable. > Any feedback is good feedback

On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:00 AM, F van der Meeren wrote: > I don't see why not. > C is a worthy language, one that I think we should fully support. > And by just providing some minor features really limits its usefulness. > Right now, at this very instance it isn't usable. Except as a stepping stone to the bigger framework. > > But thats just my 2 cents. Been thinking

As I have stated before, I am creating a LLVM-C tutorial. Now I expect it to be in a final draft form within 2~3 weeks, but how do I have to deliver it to the community? - File format ? - Style ? - ... Thank you, Filip

I am still having some trouble finding my way in the C++ files. Could you give me a clearer direction? Filip On 13 Sep 2010, at 18:39, Charles Davis wrote: > On 9/13/10 10:32 AM, F van der Meeren wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am trying to emit C code from the module I just created. And this from LLVM-C. >> If someone could give me a pointer on how to do this in llvm (with

Most of the documents (html) are generated using rst2html. So I think a patch to the rst file in llvm/tools/llvmc/doc should be fine. Rajika On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:59 PM, F van der Meeren <llvm-dev at code2develop.com > wrote: > As I have stated before, I am creating a LLVM-C tutorial. > Now I expect it to be in a final draft form within 2~3 weeks, but how do I > have to

On Sep 13, 2010, at 10:40 AM, F van der Meeren wrote: > I am still having some trouble finding my way in the C++ files. > Could you give me a clearer direction? If you have llvm IR then you can use 'llc' to generate c code. Try $ llc <input_llvm_ir> -march=c -o /tmp/output.c This C backend is implemented in llvm/lib/Target/CBackend - Devang

> > >> And combining modules is something that seemed a primitive to me. > > Why not just wrap the Linker interface? To be more specific, why not just wrap certain specific Linker calls instead of another big function that does a huge amount of work? -eric

I downloaded the latest version of puppet 2.6.0 today, and still can''t get parameterised classes to work. At least, I think it''s 2.6.0... the version number in the RPM spec file says 0.25.5. This simple example: /etc/puppet/manifests/nodes/pax/name01.pax.xxx.com.pp: node ''name01.pax.xxx.com'' { class { amodule::afunc: version => "1.0" } }

I could extract all the functionality into wrapper methods. So that it would be possible to create such a thing in C. But without considering the coding standards (it comes directly out of my repository), why would you object against this? It seemed logical to me, to be able to create code in C, and then generate C out of it. This would be useful in things like a new flex/bison. And combining

That was all I needed to hear :-) Because I am already at "chapter 3", which is regular expressions in C, but then made so that each regex becomes a real and true function. And doubt suddenly struck. What if my style isn't exactly what the LLVM community wants... On 01 Sep 2010, at 15:09, nessim wrote: > hey Filip, > > I'm afraid i can't give you technical

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 17 Sep 2010, at 23:14, Eric Christopher wrote: >> >> >>> And combining modules is something that seemed a primitive to me. >> >> Why not just wrap the Linker interface? > > To be more specific, why not just wrap certain specific Linker calls instead of another big function that does a huge amount of work? > > -eric Done, and I will make an

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > On 2008-05-13, at 02:12, Mahadevan R wrote: > > >>> That's not how the object works... > > > > Gordon, I think I can make it work if we have the following additional > > function in LLVM-C: > > > > LLVMModuleRef LLVMGetModule(LLVMModuleProviderRef