similar to: [LLVMdev] The most efficient way to compile to LLVM IR?

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Hongbo Zhang <bobzhang1988 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > I am trying to compile my toy language to LLVM back end. (I am new to > LLVM, so my questions may sound naive) > I am looking at some tutorials about LLVM, most are about how to use LLVM > IRBuilder, however, I find the API provided by IRBuilder is quite imperative > and

Thanks for your reply. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:15 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Hongbo Zhang <bobzhang1988 at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am trying to compile my toy language to LLVM back end. (I am new to > > LLVM, so my questions may sound naive) > > I am looking at some tutorials

HOgg 0.4.1 Released ------------------- The HOgg package provides a commandline tool for manipulating Ogg files, and a corresponding Haskell library. HOgg is in hackage, or on the web at: http://www.kfish.org/~conrad/software/hogg/ This is the fourth public release. The focus is on correctness of Ogg parsing, production and editing. The capabilities of the hogg commandline tool are roughly on

I''m working on writing features for a wizard. The wizard collects information from a number of different forms, and you can navigate through it in a number of ways. Anyhow one of these forms is a customer form collecting name, and email. In the context of the wizard I feel that the following scenarios Scenario: Given I step to customer And I fill in my customer details

On 29 June 2012 17:46, Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: > Yes and no. Shortly: original GHC/ARM/LLVM port was done by Stephen on > ARMv5/Qemu IIRC. I've later added whole VFP support and ARMv7 support. The > code in GHC is properly #ifdefed, so if there is no VFP available on pre > ARMv6, then it's not used. ie. GHC STG floating points regs are then >

Hi Renato, On 06/25/12 12:13 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > Hi Karel, > > I understand this patch has already been merged (to 3.0), so don't > take my question as stopping the merge to head, I'm just making sure I > got it right... The rest looks correct. > > + CCIfType<[v2f64], CCAssignToReg<[Q4, Q5]>>, > + CCIfType<[f64], CCAssignToReg<[D8, D9,

Hey all, I just found Bryan Helmkamp''s (of webrat fame) slides on a presentation he did at GoRuCo 2008: http://www.brynary.com/2008/4/26/story-driven-development-slides-posted On slides 21-24 he talks about writing good stories and shows gives two examples.. the way not to do it and the way to do it. You can also see the video of the presentation at confreaks

Hi All, The GHC developers would like to add support to llvm to enable the order that code and data are laid out in, in the resulting assembly code produced by llvm to be defined by the user. The reason we would like to have this feature is explained in the blog post on GHC's use of llvm here: http://blog.llvm.org/2010/05/glasgow-haskell-compiler-and-llvm.html, specifically under the title,

Hi all, When I use Clang, I can add -mno-thumb to the command line and Clang generates pure Arm code without any use of Thumb instructions. However, I am messing about with the Glasgow Haskell Compiler (GHC) which generates LLVM IR code directly and then calls `opt` and `llc` on that IR code. The generated IR code currently has: target datalayout =

Tim Northover wrote: > That shouldn't be happening. The "armv6" ought to imply ARM mode. What > Thumb instructions are you seeing, and do you have a .ll file that > reproduces the issue with standard tools or is it just the way GHC is > driving LLVM? Sorry false alarm. I was a looking an object file produced by GCC compiling a C file, not an object file produced by GHC

Somehow this cover letter was dropped from my symbol offsets patch set: 1. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-May/073200.html 2. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-May/073201.html Original message ----------------- About a year ago a proposal suggesting symbol offsets was brought to this list[1]. This proposal goes hand-in-hand with the prefix data proposal[2]

In some language implementations, such as the Glasgow Haskell Compiler (GHC) and the reference implementation of Go, a thread’s stack is allocated as a data structure on the garbage-collected heap.  The garbage collector is free to move this data structure whenever it is invoked. Currently, GHC’s LLVM backend does not use the C stack.  However, there have been discussions about whether using the

hi, with LLVM 3.1, i am trying to compile toy.cpp from http://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/LangImpl7.html#code. i got the following error: $ clang++ -g toy.cpp `llvm-config --cppflags --ldflags --libs core jit native` -O3 -o toy toy.cpp:4:10: fatal error: 'llvm/IRBuilder.h' file not found #include "llvm/IRBuilder.h" i fixed this by modifying the broken line to: #include

everyone-- File this under Advocacy. See this thread <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2010-February/018425.html> for more information, but the short summary is that they're deprecating their old "compile to GCC" backend in favor of David Terei's new LLVM backend. They're still planning for their C-- backend to be the primary backend for native

Forgive the long post, just looking for input/advice/alternate opinions.. Like many I think that going through the exercise of framing user requests in Cucumber terms(Features, Scenarios..) really helps facilitate necessary conversations and avoid time wasted implementing the wrong thing(e.g. as a requirement/specification tool). However, I''m a bit confused when it comes to

Hello Cameron, thanks a lot for your fast answer, which just makes me curious if making ARM tailcalls on par with x86 in the future is on some of the development plans already? If not, then what do you think is the complexity of such work? Thanks! Karel On 06/17/11 10:41 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote: > They work pretty well now, at least on Thumb2 / Darwin. It is still fairly conservative

Hi All, The Glasgow Haskell compiler has recently become an external user of LLVM. You can read about it here: http://blog.llvm.org/2010/05/glasgow-haskell-compiler-and-llvm.html If you have any comments, questions or perhaps even advice on solving some of the issues that need to be fixed in the backend going forward then please reply to this email. Cheers, David

Hi Alex, Sanjoy, exposing the internal IRBuilder to users of SCEVExpander violates information hiding, and encourages the tight coupling that makes code bases such as Polly so hard to maintain. SCEVExpander::expandCodeFor returns a Value that (if it's an instruction) can be used to update the insert point of the client's IRBuilder. Is that not enough? No hidden state, no hidden state

Hey, Alternatively, expose a SCEVExpander::getInsertPoint? This would proxy the underlying IRbuilder, with no real state sharing, other than the current insert point. This will be less ugly than recieving the expanded SCEV value, casting to an instruction, and feeding this to the IRBuilder. Cheers, siddharth On Thu 3 May, 2018, 15:36 Philip Pfaffe via llvm-dev, < llvm-dev at

I'm spec-ing a development server for some Haskell hackers. In particular, they need to be able to build and run the Glasgow Haskell Compiler (ghc), the x86_64 port of which isn't quite there yet. My current thought is to get an Opteron-based system, but load it (initially, at least) with the 32-bit i386 version of CentOS. That buys me near-term ghc compatibility. In the future,