similar to: [LLVMdev] Connection llvm ir

> for example: > 1. Turn C/C++ language into C_llvmIR assembly language using Clang > 2. Turn Fortran language into Fortran_llvmIR assembly language using > Dragonegg > 3. Turn Python language into Python_llvmIR assembly language using > Unladen-Swallow > 4. Connect each llvm IR > > Is this possible? I guess you want to link LLVM IR generated for different language

> > I want to connect each llvm ir > > > > for example: > > 1. Turn C/C++ language into C_llvmIR assembly language using Clang > > 2. Turn Fortran language into Fortran_llvmIR assembly language using Dragonegg > > 3. Turn Python language into Python_llvmIR assembly language using Unladen-Swallow > > 4. Connect each llvm IR > > > > Is this

Hi 최원준, > I want to connect each llvm ir > > for example: > 1. Turn C/C++ language into C_llvmIR assembly language using Clang > 2. Turn Fortran language into Fortran_llvmIR assembly language using Dragonegg > 3. Turn Python language into Python_llvmIR assembly language using Unladen-Swallow > 4. Connect each llvm IR > > Is this possible? this should work fine: if you

I want to call C function from fortran or call fortran function from C. 2011년 6월 15일 오전 11:59, 陳韋任 <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw>님의 말: > > for example: > > 1. Turn C/C++ language into C_llvmIR assembly language using Clang > > 2. Turn Fortran language into Fortran_llvmIR assembly language using > > Dragonegg > > 3. Turn Python language into Python_llvmIR

Hi, Slightly off-topic (as it's not directly about using or developing LLVM): http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/ProjectPlan "Our long-term proposal is to replace CPython's custom virtual machine with a JIT built on top of LLVM, while leaving the rest of the Python runtime relatively intact." Just curious, has anyone here heard more about this project? Regards,

Not sure, but it seems the page contains a number of out-of-date entries: Pypy => pypy.org (link stale) plus: there is no llvm backend for pypy at the moment (although LLVM backends have been attempted a number of times, all seem to have failed) Unladen Swallow => not being developed since 2011 (http://qinsb.blogspot.com/2011/03/unladen-swallow-retrospective.html) TIA, Andreas The

Hello Duncan, > thanks for your interesting email. Do you understand why PyPy is no longer > using LLVM, and why Unladen Swallow died? Does LLVM need to be improved in > some way? The answers to all these questions are linked: LLVM is not fast enough (for a JIT). Of course this is not the whole story, but it is the LLVM-relevant part. Let's have a look at some random performance

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl> wrote: > Hi, > > Slightly off-topic (as it's not directly about using or developing LLVM): > > http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/ProjectPlan > > "Our long-term proposal is to replace CPython's custom virtual machine > with a JIT built on top of LLVM, while leaving the

Hi Travis, ... > LLVM is still very relevant to Python because of projects like Numba --- but you > should know that PyPy is no longer using LLVM and Unladen Swallow has not been > worked on for several years. The future of LLVM and Python I think is very > bright --- especially for the scientific and data-analysis user-base. thanks for your interesting email. Do you understand

Hi, Has anyone had any success with running different PassManagers on llvm::Modules they've already JITed and are executing? In detail: 1) getting the IR, in form of an llvm::Module 2) calling PassManager->run() on the module 3) calling getFunction() and getPointerToFunction() to JIT the module 4) executing the JITed code using the function pointer received in step 3 and then what I

Owen Anderson wrote: > On Jul 15, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Jean-Daniel Dupas wrote: >> >> You mean like this subject ? >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-June/023505.html > > Notice the sender line on that email... ;-) Yes, you indeed announced that change, but as John rightfully remarked, the announcement gave little detail. For LLVM users like me,

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2010, at 7:05 PM, Steven Noonan wrote: >> I've been doing work on memory reduction in Unladen Swallow, and >> during testing, LiveRanges seemed to be consuming one of the largest >> chunks of memory. > > That's interesting. How did you measure this? I'd

The only VHDL to LLVM project that I know of is nvc. [0] I haven't tried it personally and from a cursory look through the source it seems like there is a LLVM backend and a "native" backend (not sure what that means). If you're really crazy you might want to see if you could massage GHDL [1] (VHDL GCC frontend) + DragonEgg [2] (LLVM backend for GCC) to get you LLVM IR. I'm

Hi, I found the following wiki page in the Unladen Swallow project: http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/CodeLifecycle This would appear to answer my question. Could someone confirm for me if it's definitely unsafe to attempt to optimise/JIT any Modules while a different thread is currently executing a JITed function which has been generated from them? Or am I just missing

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Albert Graef<Dr.Graef at t-online.de> wrote: > Owen Anderson wrote: >> On Jul 15, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Jean-Daniel Dupas wrote: >>> >>> You mean like this subject ? >>> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-June/023505.html >> >> Notice the sender line on that email... ;-) > > Yes, you

Thanks for the report. The attached patch removes them from the page. OK? On 8 May 2013 11:34, Kostyrka (External user) Andreas <Andreas.Kostyrka at kapsch.net> wrote: > Not sure, but it seems the page contains a number of out-of-date entries: > > > > Pypy => pypy.org (link stale) plus: there is no llvm backend for pypy at the > moment (although LLVM backends have been

Hi all, First, I just want to say thank you for the excellent LLVM project. I have been playing with LLVM for the first part of this year and have been quite impressed with what I've seen and what is possible. I've been coding for a long time, but haven't had this much fun since I first learned Python. The work you have done has opened the door for a tremendous amount of

In Unladen Swallow we (intend to) compile each function as we determine it's hot. To "compile" a function means to translate it from CPython bytecode to LLVM IR, optimize the IR using a FunctionPassManager, and JIT the IR to machine code. We'd like to include inlining among our optimizations. Currently the Inliner is a CallGraphSCCPass, which can only be run by the

Right now, on X86, creating multiple ExecutionEngines in the same process causes an assertion. If it's supposed to always be a singleton, should there be a way to get the process's ExecutionEngine instance? This would, among other things, allow "lli" to execute bitcode that itself uses the ExecutionEngine.

On Aug 7, 2010, at 7:05 PM, Steven Noonan wrote: > I've been doing work on memory reduction in Unladen Swallow, and > during testing, LiveRanges seemed to be consuming one of the largest > chunks of memory. That's interesting. How did you measure this? I'd love to see your data. Note that the LiveRange struct is allocated by a plain std::vector, and your patch doesn't