At 02:19 AM 7/31/2009, lowly coder wrote:
I've been on gambit for 6+ months now; and the more I dig into the internal *.scm's, the more I'm impressed -- anyone interested in forming a group to port this to LLVM as an exercise to better understand gambit internals? Something like meeting on irc 15 minutes every week or so to discuss would be really nice.
I'm very interested, but I just got tasked with creating a web site of some sophistication and it looks like I'll be drawn to the Clojure side of the Force, which at minimum will be educational (e.g. it's by default functional). But who knows....
Back then I got a snapshot of the initial cut by Arnaud Bergeron and Mathieu Larose from the former for placement in the Dumping Grounds, but didn't get a release from the latter for putting it there; I didn't try very hard at all and didn't follow up.
Mathieu, say the word and I'll put that snapshot up.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Bradley Lucierlucier@math.purdue.edu wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
It's six months since this post. Any progress on the llvm backend?
The last time I compiled the Gambit-generated C code with LLVM (which wasn't so long ago) gsi failed at startup. (I know this isn't what you're referring to, but I presume the LLVM compiler may have the same difficulties compiling the LLVM intermediate representation.)
Hmmmm; I assume you used the gcc front end instead of Clang?
- Harold
Afficher les réponses par date
On Jul 31, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Harold Ancell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Bradley Lucierlucier@math.purdue.edu wrote:
The last time I compiled the Gambit-generated C code with LLVM (which wasn't so long ago) gsi failed at startup. (I know this isn't what you're referring to, but I presume the LLVM compiler may have the same difficulties compiling the LLVM intermediate representation.)
Hmmmm; I assume you used the gcc front end instead of Clang?
I don't know what distinction you're trying to make; I got the C compiler from llvm.org this summer and used it to compile the C files in the Gambit distribution.
Brad
At 09:52 AM 7/31/2009, Bradley Lucier wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Harold Ancell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Bradley Lucierlucier@math.purdue.edu wrote:
The last time I compiled the Gambit-generated C code with LLVM (which wasn't so long ago) gsi failed at startup. (I know this isn't what you're referring to, but I presume the LLVM compiler may have the same difficulties compiling the LLVM intermediate representation.)
Hmmmm; I assume you used the gcc front end instead of Clang?
I don't know what distinction you're trying to make; I got the C compiler from llvm.org this summer and used it to compile the C files in the Gambit distribution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM#Front-ends
Front-ends
LLVM was originally written to be a more aggressive, higher performance system for the existing GCC stack, and many of the GCC front-ends have been modified to work with it. ... [ It uses ] front-ends derived from version 4.0.1 and 4.2 of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC).
However, widespread interest in LLVM has led to a number of efforts to develop entirely new front-ends for a variety of languages. One that has received the most attention is clang, a new compiler supporting C, Obj-C and C++. Primarily supported by Apple, clang is aimed at replacing the C/Obj-C compiler in the GCC system with a modern system that is more easily integrated with IDEs, and has wider support for multithreading. [ It also is a better code base for Obj-C work. ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clang#Overview
Clang was designed from the start to be threaded and aims for reduced memory footprint and increased speed. As of October 2007, clang compiled the Carbon libraries well over twice as fast as GCC, while using about five times less memory and disk space.
And the clang/LLVM new code base, made with the hindsight of gcc development, is a lot more tractable. One day maybe it'll be practical for Gambit-C and finding and fixing regressions won't be in the style of the poking at it with sticks that I gathered from reading your "fun with gcc" bug reports recently.
- Harold
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Harold Ancell wrote:
At 09:52 AM 7/31/2009, Bradley Lucier wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Harold Ancell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Bradley Lucierlucier@math.purdue.edu wrote:
The last time I compiled the Gambit-generated C code with LLVM (which wasn't so long ago) gsi failed at startup. (I know this isn't what you're referring to, but I presume the LLVM compiler may have the same difficulties compiling the LLVM intermediate representation.)
Hmmmm; I assume you used the gcc front end instead of Clang?
I don't know what distinction you're trying to make; I got the C compiler from llvm.org this summer and used it to compile the C files in the Gambit distribution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM#Front-ends
Front-ends
LLVM was originally written to be a more aggressive, higher performance system for the existing GCC stack, and many of the GCC front-ends have been modified to work with it. ... [ It uses ] front-ends derived from version 4.0.1 and 4.2 of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC).
However, widespread interest in LLVM has led to a number of efforts to develop entirely new front-ends for a variety of languages. One that has received the most attention is clang, a new compiler supporting C, Obj-C and C++. Primarily supported by Apple, clang is aimed at replacing the C/Obj-C compiler in the GCC system with a modern system that is more easily integrated with IDEs, and has wider support for multithreading. [ It also is a better code base for Obj-C work. ]
Interesting perspective on that page:
Obj-C development under GCC was somewhat moribund and Apple's changes to the language were supported in a separately maintained branch.
Apple stopped contributing code to FSF gcc development when the code base was converted to the GPL 3 license. (Or, more accurately, they did not put any GPL 3.0 code from the FSF code base into the code base of their own version of gcc, which they have always maintained separately, and which is licensed under GPL 2.0.) Perhaps when and if Apple legal passes judgement on GPL 3.0 Apple developers will merge the two code bases again. But perhaps not, if they're putting all their work onto LLVM after hiring Chris Lattner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clang#Overview
Clang was designed from the start to be threaded and aims for reduced memory footprint and increased speed. As of October 2007, clang compiled the Carbon libraries well over twice as fast as GCC, while using about five times less memory and disk space.
And the clang/LLVM new code base, made with the hindsight of gcc development, is a lot more tractable. One day maybe it'll be practical for Gambit-C and finding and fixing regressions won't be in the style of the poking at it with sticks that I gathered from reading your "fun with gcc" bug reports recently.
I don't know if you meant that literally, but I can't find any messages in my mail archives with "fun with gcc" in the subject line.
I misspoke about the experiment I tried. On my 2GHz G5 running Mac OS X 10.5.7 I used LLVM 4.2.1, build 2064.3, from Apple's development tools
./configure CC='/Developer/usr/bin/llvm-gcc-4.2 -m64' --enable- single-host make mostlyclean time make -j 2 1970.490u 87.945s 18:27.76 185.8% 0+0k 10+224io 5724pf+0w
gsi/gsi will start up but won't accept input:
[monster-mac:~/programs/gambc-v4_4_4-devel] lucier% gsi/gsi Gambit v4.4.4
When I configure with Apple's gcc 4.2.2, build 5574, things work fine:
./configure CC='gcc-4.2 -m64 -mcpu=970' --enable-single-host make mostlyclean time make -j 2 350.812u 42.799s 3:45.18 174.7% 0+0k 0+69io 5246pf+0w
So I agree that LLVM is the future of gcc. Always has been, always will be.
Brad
At 01:57 PM 7/31/2009, Bradley Lucier wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Harold Ancell wrote:
At 09:52 AM 7/31/2009, Bradley Lucier wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Harold Ancell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Bradley Lucierlucier@math.purdue.edu wrote:
The last time I compiled the Gambit-generated C code with LLVM (which wasn't so long ago) gsi failed at startup. (I know this isn't what you're referring to, but I presume the LLVM compiler may have the same difficulties compiling the LLVM intermediate representation.)
Hmmmm; I assume you used the gcc front end instead of Clang?
I don't know what distinction you're trying to make; I got the C compiler from llvm.org this summer and used it to compile the C files in the Gambit distribution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM#Front-ends
[...]
Interesting perspective on that page:
Obj-C development under GCC was somewhat moribund and Apple's changes to the language were supported in a separately maintained branch.
Apple stopped contributing code to FSF gcc development when the code base was converted to the GPL 3 license. (Or, more accurately, they did not put any GPL 3.0 code from the FSF code base into the code base of their own version of gcc, which they have always maintained separately, and which is licensed under GPL 2.0.) Perhaps when and if Apple legal passes judgement on GPL 3.0 Apple developers will merge the two code bases again. But perhaps not, if they're putting all their work onto LLVM after hiring Chris Lattner.
Yes, for ANYTHING political Wikipedia is not to be trusted.
Anything having to do with Apple qualifies ^_^.
Thanks for the above info.
[...]
And the clang/LLVM new code base, made with the hindsight of gcc development, is a lot more tractable. One day maybe it'll be practical for Gambit-C and finding and fixing regressions won't be in the style of the poking at it with sticks that I gathered from reading your "fun with gcc" bug reports recently.
I don't know if you meant that literally, but I can't find any messages in my mail archives with "fun with gcc" in the subject line.
Not literally, I was referring to your gcc.gun.org Bugzilla reports, most especially:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
[4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] 30% performance slowdown in floating-point code caused by r118475
I found it educational (seriously, I'm not a compiler guy).
- Harold
-
Bradley Lucier -
Harold Ancell