similar to: What was the IR made for precisely?

> On Oct 27, 2016, at 3:05 AM, ジョウェットジェームス via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > wanting to build up some language of my own, I have always thought about feeding my compiler output to a C compiler like gcc or clang, however when I learned about (considered using) LLVM IR I immediately thought it could be of some help. > > LLVM doesn't seem to be

On 27 Oct 2016, at 11:05, ジョウェットジェームス via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > wanting to build up some language of my own, I have always thought about feeding my compiler output to a C compiler like gcc or clang, however when I learned about (considered using) LLVM IR I immediately thought it could be of some help. > > LLVM doesn't seem to be portable

> On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:21 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 28 Oct 2016, at 02:43, ジョウェットジェームス <b3i4zz1gu1 at docomo.ne.jp> wrote: >> >> I would need to sum up all the rules and ABIs and sizes for all the targets I need and generate different IR for each, am I correct? > > This is a long-known limitation of LLVM IR

> On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:59 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 28 Oct 2016, at 09:46, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:21 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 28 Oct 2016, at 02:43, ジョウェットジェームス <b3i4zz1gu1 at

> On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:21 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 28 Oct 2016, at 02:43, ジョウェットジェームス <b3i4zz1gu1 at docomo.ne.jp> wrote: >> >> I would need to sum up all the rules and ABIs and sizes for all the targets I need and generate different IR for each, am I correct? > > This is a long-known limitation of LLVM IR and

On 28 Oct 2016, at 10:10, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:59 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> On 28 Oct 2016, at 09:46, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:21 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

On 28 Oct 2016, at 09:46, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:21 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On 28 Oct 2016, at 02:43, ジョウェットジェームス <b3i4zz1gu1 at docomo.ne.jp> wrote: >>> >>> I would need to sum up all the rules and ABIs and sizes for all the targets I need

On 28 Oct 2016, at 02:43, ジョウェットジェームス <b3i4zz1gu1 at docomo.ne.jp> wrote: > > I would need to sum up all the rules and ABIs and sizes for all the targets I need and generate different IR for each, am I correct? This is a long-known limitation of LLVM IR and there are a lot of proposals to fix it. It would be great if the LLVM Foundation would fund someone to do the work, as it

On 27 October 2016 at 16:18, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > LLVM IR is intended as a compiler intermediate representation. It aims to be able to express anything that arbitrary source languages might want and anything that target architectures may implement, in a way that is not closely tied to either specific source languages or target architectures.

Thank you for your answers. In fact I'm still hesitating between C and C++, sorry for my incomplete message. What I want to write is some sort of DSL; so I can afford both I think. I'm thinking about generating standard-compliant code using numeric limits and stuff; given that I don't care about compilation time or debugging, I think I can still use C++ in case I decide to include

I think it would be possible to build a stripped-down C-with-extensions-only type representation that represents only the types that have interesting ABI implications. This includes several things not present in LLVM IR types: _Complex, union, flexible array members, alignment attributes, etc. We could either then use that library to generate LLVM IR, or embed it in the IR for use at call sites.

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Lattner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "David Chisnall" <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> > Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org, "ジョウェットジェームス" <b3i4zz1gu1 at docomo.ne.jp> > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 2:13:06 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] What was the IR made for precisely?

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "ジョウェットジェームス" > <b3i4zz1gu1 at docomo.ne.jp> > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 11:39:04 AM > Subject:

I have a requirement where I want a Fact to be stored in PuppetDB during the manifest run and not during the initial fact gathering phase. I know I can, in my manifests, create a file in /etc/facter/facts.d or I can write a Ruby script that will then be distributed by plugin sync. But both of these methods will only publish the fact during the initial phase of the puppet agent run. What I

Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> writes: Great post, Dan. Some comments follow. [snip] > * Target-specific ABI code. In order to interoperate with native > C ABIs, LLVM requires front-ends to emit target-specific IR. > Pretty much everyone around here has run into this. There are places where compatibility with the native C ABI is taken too far. For instance, time ago I

In this email, I argue that LLVM IR is a poor system for building a Platform, by which I mean any system where LLVM IR would be a format in which programs are stored or transmitted for subsequent use on multiple underlying architectures. LLVM IR initially seems like it would work well here. I myself was once attracted to this idea. I was even motivated to put a bunch of my own personal time into

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 17:28, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > opaque pointers don't exist in the IR yet - the goal is to reduce the places that use non-opacity of pointer types already/today and then opacify the existing pointer type, rather than introducing an opaque pointer type & having it concurrently with non-opaque pointer types. (though in retrospect

Greetings All, I am sending this mail on behalf of the OpenCL Khronos members. **** Introduction **** Lately, Khronos has ratified a new provisional specification which is called SPIR. This specification standardizes an intermediate representation for the OpenCL kernel language. It is based on LLVM infrastructure and this is why I am sending this mail to the LLVM mailing list. Khronos members

On 23 May 2016, at 12:16, Lorenzo Laneve <lore97drk at icloud.com> wrote: > > I'm not talking about a new library instead of the libc, I'm talking about letting people create a library optimized for a specific frontend, regardless of the target. It sounded as if you were talking about a library that sits underneath such a thing. Lots of languages have their own runtime

Hello. I want to get the proper influence function for the glm coefficients in R. This is supposed to be inv(information)*(y-yhat)*x. So I am wondering what is the exact mathematical formula for the output that the functions: dfbeta() OR lm.influence()$coefficients return for a glm model. I am confused because: 1. Their columns don't sum to zero as influences should. 2. They