similar to: [LLVMdev] Reading Instructions from Ocaml

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Gregory Malecha <gmalecha at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, Hello Gregory, > I'm interested in the OCaml bindings, but I've been digging through them and > it doesn't seem possible to actually write a transformation with them. > Specifically, there are a lot of functions to build each type of > instruction, but there doesn't seem

I thought it would, but it seems to be missing the CloneModule symbol (which isn't called from anywhere in the LLVM codebase). On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 7:43 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 7/14/11 7:36 PM, Gregory Malecha wrote: > > Hello, > > I have a question about how to set up a Makefile that generate a .so that I > can load into opt

Hi Gregory, I had a similar problem a while back, see: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-June/032508.html for my solution to this problem. Basically I ended up linking in the *.o files needed to get exactly what I needed (in your case, the file defining CloneModule and whatever else you need), without pulling in too much (causing duplicate symbol issues with opt). Hopefully this

On 7/14/11 7:36 PM, Gregory Malecha wrote: > Hello, > > I have a question about how to set up a Makefile that generate a .so > that I can load into opt without getting duplicate symbols. Here's > what I have right now: Have you tried removing LINK_COMPONENTS below? I suspect that the opt binary already contains everying in the transformUtils library. -- John T. > >

Hello, I have a question about how to set up a Makefile that generate a .so that I can load into opt without getting duplicate symbols. Here's what I have right now: LIBRARYNAME=previrt SHARED_LIBRARY=previrt LINK_COMPONENTS := transformUtils LINK_LIBS_IN_SHARED=1 include $(LEVEL)/Makefile.common LIBS += -lprotobuf CPPFLAGS += -I${HOME}/.root/usr/include -DGOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_RTTI LDFLAGS

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.

Hello, I'm wondering if anyone had any success (even a small amount) compiling any variant of libc to llvm bitcode? -- gregory malecha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110622/b5fad437/attachment.html>

Hello, I'm working on a project that involves archive files and since llvm-link does not currently support them, I have a simple patch (attached) to add this functionality. It isn't really efficient (it recomputes the set of symbols that need to be linked in after each link), and it probably has some problems with append linkage, but so far it has been enough for me. I'd like to

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, 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

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 2011-07-29 16:16, Gregory Malecha wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working on a project that involves archive files and since llvm-link > does not currently support them, I have a simple patch (attached) to add > this functionality. It isn't really efficient (it recomputes the set of > symbols that need to be linked in after each link), and it probably has > some problems

Hi Xi, How did you compile it with clang? I ran into problems: clang -emit-llvm -DPACKAGE_NAME=\"newlib\" -DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\"newlib\" -DPACKAGE_VERSION=\"1.19.0\" -DPACKAGE_STRING=\"newlib\ 1.19.0\" -DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\"\" -DPACKAGE_URL=\"\" -I. -DMISSING_SYSCALL_NAMES -fno-builtin -DMISSING_SYSCALL_NAMES -fno-builtin -O2 -c -o

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

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

Hello, I'm looking at compiling some pieces of the standard library with llvm but I'm running into problems with some functions being renamed by dragonegg. For example, when I compile the acos implementation with plain gcc I get: $ nm acos.o 0000000000000000 r .LC1 0000000000000048 r .LC10 0000000000000050 r .LC11 0000000000000058 r .LC12 0000000000000060 r .LC13 0000000000000068 r .LC14

So just to compare, here are two different typesafe phantom type implementations. One is bottom down, the other bottom up. This is an example of the following functions: string Value::getName() bool Constant::isNull() bool GlobalValue::isDeclaration() bool GlobalVariable::isGlobalConstant() bool Function::isVarArg() Driver code: val make_constant : unit -> llconstant t val

Hi Duncan, Ah, non-unicode email... In the llvm output there should be a "1" character, i.e. (char) 0x01, prepended to acos and __GI_acos. I'm unable to get it on smaller things, but it happens when I try to compile uClibc with llvm. I've attached the .o and the .bc for comparison. The text file is the result after preprocessing (to avoid having to download a bunch of stuff).

Hi Erick, On 2008-03-15, at 04:03, Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > 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. I > think I got an easy solution with phantom types. This could be a good step. I'm not sure I can predict all of the implications; I'd suggest you work up a proof of concept.

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