similar to: [LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends

----- Original Message ----- > From: Nate Fries <nfries88 at yahoo.com> > To: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com>; LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Cc: > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 6:52 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends > > Most JVMs perform terribly. Even Sun's has had notable performance

On 6/3/2011 3:19 PM, Samuel Crow wrote: > Why not runtime checks? The constant folding and dead-code elimination passes would get rid of any redundant code in a later stage of compilation anyway. The important part, as I see it, is that LLVM already does constant folding and dead-code elimination. Meta-data might require more effort in the long run. > > --snip-- Less flexible for the

Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> writes: > Here's some of what it would take to make portable bitcodes in C or LLVM Assembly: A look at the work done on ANDF in the 90's may be helpful. I've only skimmed it but there's been some deep thinking about stuff like this. -Dave

Hi Nate, I've successfully ported one bitcode from Linux to Mac to Windows.  All were x86 and the program was text-based, but I'd say my LLVM Wrapper would be worth some effort in the future if I could just get some help.  Currently it just wraps StdIO.h with its own functions. Here's some of what it would take to make portable bitcodes in C or LLVM Assembly: * Convert all

Cameron Zwarich wrote: > What benefit do you get from having a backend here rather than an interpreter for LLVM IR? The same thing as an interpreter, just a native build (no need for an interpreter program, better speed, etc). This would be beneficial anywhere that "build once, deploy anywhere" functionality is desired, without resorting to using a higher-level language like C# or

Am 01.06.2011 04:57, schrieb Cameron Zwarich: > What benefit do you get from having a backend here rather than an interpreter for LLVM IR? A backend that's self-sufficient and covers the entire Unixoid world. That cuts down on the number of binaries that one needs to provide for autoinstallers and such. Generated Perl could be used to bootstrap an LLVM IR interpreter, for example.

On 6/2/2011 10:13 AM, Samuel Crow wrote: > Hi Nate, > > I've successfully ported one bitcode from Linux to Mac to Windows. All were x86 and the program was text-based, but I'd say my LLVM Wrapper would be worth some effort in the future if I could just get some help. Currently it just wraps StdIO.h with its own functions Naturally that would work perfectly fine on a similar

Am 01.06.2011 23:25, schrieb Nate Fries: > That said, it seems like it ought to be possible to do the same thing > by emitting bitcode for all supported platform/arch combinations Wait... is bitcode not platform-agnostic? I thought it is. > and > compressing them in an archive, then decompressing and either > interpreting or JIT-compiling the appropriate bitcode for the >

What benefit do you get from having a backend here rather than an interpreter for LLVM IR? Cameron On May 31, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > I've been tossing around some ideas about high-level backends. > > Say, have LLVM emit Perl code. > > Sounds whacky but isn't. It's good for the first bootstrapping phase in > environments where you don't

On 6/3/2011 3:19 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: >>>> compressing them in an archive, then decompressing and either >>>> interpreting or JIT-compiling the appropriate bitcode for the >>>> platform. This would just be a more flexible means to that same end. >>> Not sure how that is more flexible - care to elaborate? >> More flexible to the programmer,

On May 31, 2011, at 7:36 PM, Samuel Crow wrote: <snip> >> >> Now my idea for a whacky backend: Just a wrapper of the bitcode writer with its >> own special target triple: bitcode-tarrget-neutral and a generic data layout >> that aligns to single bytes as a placeholder only. It should disallow >> overriding the alignment of individual instructions to avoid

Sorry, forgot to CC the list. ----- Forwarded Message ----- > From: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > To: Joachim Durchholz <jo at durchholz.org> > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 9:35 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends > > Hello, > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Joachim Durchholz

I've been tossing around some ideas about high-level backends. Say, have LLVM emit Perl code. Sounds whacky but isn't. It's good for the first bootstrapping phase in environments where you don't have a C compiler, where you don't have a cross-compiled binary for download, but you can execute Perl. It also makes a great inspect-the-sources-with-an-editor stage for aspiring

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Henry Mason <thefridgeowl at gmail.com> wrote: > This is pretty much what's happening with Portable Native Client, right? > > http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/pnacl > > See also the first presentation from the November LLVM meeting: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2010-11/ PNaCl fixes data layout to be just "portable enough" to cover

Hello, I''m trying to build XenLinux 2.4.30 on debian. I get the following error for make linux24 make[2]: *** No rule to make target `skbuff.c'',needed by `/usr/src/xen-2.0/linux-2.4.30-xen0/include/linux/modules/skbuff.ver''. Stop. Could somebody help me resolve this error. Or if this is some problem with the system configuration that I''m using, could

Hi, We are using samba-3.0.28a on linux-2-6-18 with which WinVista, as CIFS client, see the soft limit as hard limit and doesn't allow data transfer. Is there a fix already available for this? If not, could you pls gimme some pointers to fix this issue? Thanks, Senthil M Please do not print this email unless it is absolutely necessary. The information contained in this electronic message

Does anyone know how I could integrate my Asterisk setup with Outlook so that when I click on a phone number is my outlook address book it will dial the number and ring my SIP phone so that I can just pick it up? I am interested in this integration for WinXP with Outlook 2003 and WInVista with Outlook 2007. Thanks, Michael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hi. I've recently picked up a 256MB compact flash card and CF->IDE adapter. I'm wanting to put a smaller version of knoppix on here. I came across miniknoppix here: http://www.inittab.org and decided to have a play around with that. So far I have opened up the ISO image and copied all the files out. I have put a boot sector onto the CF by putting the CF into the IDER adpater then

I was wondering if I replace the mswsock.dll with the one on my winXP partition could solve the acceptEX problem. I have both win98 and winXP CDs (my winVista Laptop didn't come with any), so I was thinking if I replace those problematic DLLs or use a full windows installation somehow, it might solve this problem.

Hi, I've been following a similar and current thread about name resolution from LINUX side. I have exactly the opposite problem (running ubuntu 7.10 on a network with a mixture ubuntu 6.06, WinXP and WinVista boxes) The winboxes cannot see or mount this 7.10 box I can mount WinPC shares on this 7.10 box. I was wondering about firewalls, but I can ping this 7.10 from the WinBox by IP address