On Dec 9, 2011, at 15:30 , Török Edwin wrote: >> Just drop Colin a mail and ask him for the current patch (should be for 2.7 >> or 2.8, IIRC). > > FWIW 3.0 has some fixes in the OCaml bindings that may (or may not) be useful > for you, like: > findlib support, string_of_lltype not dieing on recursive structs, bindings > to ipo.h, > bindings to some additional C APIs that were missing from the OCaml ones, > support for creating landing pads.
The prototype should not use the C/OCaml API, but emit a textual representation instead (for various reasons). The work is based on an earlier prototype I did some time ago and that was based on LLVM 2.7. IIRC Colin ported that to 2.8, because 2.9 had some fundamental differences that caused trouble with the custom calling conventions. I haven't looked into this myself, but I'm sure we can port the final patch to 3.0 once things proved working. >>> I think it is natural that you have to make changes to LLVM, >>> the GHC people (which now have an experimental LLVM backend) also did, >>> and I was under the impression that the LLVM people where quite >>> welcoming of their changes, they are glad to see LLVM being used in a >>> non-Clang-centric project. I think your patches could bring value to >>> LLVM, independently of the success of the ambitious ocaml backend >>> attempt. >> >> Hm, I'm not sure. It's really easy to generate LLVM code for OCaml in >> general, the problem is getting things to interact with legacy OCaml code, >> with exception handling being one of the most important issue. The required >> stuff will be very platform specific and very specific to OCaml, and we >> don't even know if it's going to work. > > Is binary compatibility with a specific version of ocamlopt necessary? It's a "nice to have" thing. > Best regards, > --Edwin Benedikt -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
