similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM parsers for popular languages? - Python, Rust, Go

Thanks, happy to of confirmed. With that in mind, will use the AST modules provided by the languages (with the exception of libclang for C++). Antoine: Am aware of Numba, nice job there BTW. So is there a [decoupled] LLVM parser which I can use to read Python files and analyse objects (including computing their attributes in OO and setattr scenarios)? On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Antoine

Yep we have our own parser <https://github.com/vinzenz/libpypa/> and we would love to see other people use it. When we looked around at some other Python parsers we didn't feel like any of them were easy to extract and use on their own, so we wrote our own and I think were able to keep ours well-separated. There are some things that make parsing Python somewhat difficult to do in a

Possibly protobuf or capn proto would be much more clean alternatives to json. I was working with interpreting instruction semantics a while back, and you shouldn't have to write a parser to get the data structure back into coherent form, you can get what you want automatically and have the structure isolated into a common schema. On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Stephen Cross <scross at

Considering engineering my own code-generator. If I do go ahead, will open-source the end result. Needs to read [parse] one language, and output JSON (conformant to a specific JSON-schema). Then needs to read JSON, and reproduce the code in that language, and [possibly] merge the generated code with existing code. Languages I'm looking to support are all rather popular (Python, Go, Rust,

Good Afternoon, I'm working on an audio conferencing web-frontend. It'd be helpful if I could know: ? Who's connected to the conference ? Number of people listening to the stream I also need to be able to manage/screen/kick participants. One way I can think of is having acting as proxy between conference call and guest, and if I approve them, connect them through to the conference

Hello, I am a bit curious about the rationale for the current callback-based object cache API. For Numba, it would be easier if there would be a simple procedural API: - one method to get a module's compiled object code - one method to load/instantiate a module from a given piece of object code I manage to get around the callback-based API to do what I want, but it's a bit weird to work

2016-01-20 1:11 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:47:56 +0200 > "Eddy B. via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > I would love to know your thoughts on this, and more specifically: > > Which of the 3 (byval(T), byval(N) and byval + dereferenceable + align) > > do you

On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:40:44 +0100 David Chisnall via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The end result is that shortly after a release (sometimes every alternate release) is branched a load of downstream projects update to the new APIs, test things, and find a bunch of regressions that have been sitting in the tree for months. We then have to scrabble to bisect and try

Hi there, Sorry, I don't have the thread history to reply to since I normally read llvmdev through the archives, but wanted to give my .02 of feedback anyway. As far as I understand, this change is wanted because the LLVM infrastructure derives no value from knowing the types, and there's a cost in terms of code spent to support all of it. I've been creating a frontend that mostly

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine at python.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan <at> ochtman.nl> writes: > > > > As far as I understand, this change is wanted because the LLVM > > infrastructure derives no value from knowing the types, and there's a > > cost in terms of code spent to support all of it.

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:17 -0600 > Wei Ding via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I want an efficient way to implement function pow in LLVM instead of >> invoking pow() math built-in. For algorithm part, I am clear for the

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

If you didn't catch it, there has been a recent post to the mailing list that seems like it might be relevant to your interests: <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-June/051298.html> Direct link to the project page: <http://code.google.com/p/pymothoa/> --Sean Silva On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Travis Oliphant <travis at continuum.io> wrote: > Hi all,

Hal Finkel <hfinkel <at> anl.gov> writes: > > Do you require long-term cross-release ABI and/or API stability > from the C API that you're using? Do these > other projects? For the record, in llvmlite and Numba we don't require C API stability for two reasons: 1) the C API is not enough for us and we rely on bits of the C++ API 2) we also rely on other details

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 1/12/2017 9:33 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: >>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:17 -0600 >>> Wei Ding via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

Hi, I want an efficient way to implement function pow in LLVM instead of invoking pow() math built-in. For algorithm part, I am clear for the logic. But I am not quite sure for which parts of LLVM should I replace built-in pow with another efficient pow implementation. Any comments and feedback are appreciated. Thanks! -- Wei Ding -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hi Ulrich, and any other llvm PowerPC/JIT users, It looks like the Numba maintainers have run in to an issue with RuntimeDyldELF's PowerPC support (See https://github.com/numba/numba/issues/2451#issuecomment-377739948 and later comments) Due to a recent change to weak symbol handling, we now always resolve to the first copy of a function that is emitted (discarding redundant weak/odr

Hi Stephan, On Wednesday 02 September 2020 19:59:57, Stephan Bosch wrote: > > > On 29/08/2020 21:04, Alec Moskvin wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have a rule to always delete a header. If the message gets fileinto'd, > > the header is gone, but if it's delivered into the INBOX through > > implicit keep, the header does not get deleted. > > >

On 12 May 2016 at 16:56, Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls at arm.com> wrote: > In my opinion, it would be better overall for the LLVM project if > top-of-trunk is > tested as much as possible, if testing resources are so scarce that a > choice > has to be made between testing top-of-trunk or testing a release branch. > I agree that trunk is more important, with both of my

Hi to all.. I've setup a Samba domain and now having a hard time setting up Unix to Windows user mapping. As an example on the server, user is 'agi', and at the workstation I want an 'Alec Joseph' as the user name. If I log on from a Linux desktop using the alias connection goes through: # sudo tail -f /usr/local/samba/var/log.smbd | grep 'Alec Joseph' Got