From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD9567EE35 for ; Mon, 2 May 2016 18:15:17 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:QJVZBxKqNPe6VLauW9mcpTZWNBhigK39O0sv0rFitYgUKfvxwZ3uMQTl6Ol3ixeRBMOAu6IC2rOd4v+ocFdDyKjCmUhKSIZLWR4BhJdetC0bK+nBN3fGKuX3ZTcxBsVIWQwt1Xi6NU9IBJS2PAWK8TWM5DIfUi/yKRBybrysXNWC34LmjqvjpNX6WEZhunmUWftKNhK4rAHc5IE9oLBJDeIP8CbPuWZCYO9MxGlldhq5lhf44dqsrtY4q3wD86Fpy8kVSaTxcaA/euZwEzksdWw4t+PxshyWUguO+nYFT2wMkVIcHAjE8BzjQ57rsQPltuth1TCHNNf1C7cuVmLxvO9QVBb0hXJfZHYC+2bNh5kogQ== Authentication-Results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=whitequark@whitequark.org; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=whitequark@whitequark.org; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail.whitequark.org Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of whitequark@whitequark.org) identity=pra; client-ip=176.58.103.125; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="whitequark@whitequark.org"; x-sender="whitequark@whitequark.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of whitequark@whitequark.org designates 176.58.103.125 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=176.58.103.125; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="whitequark@whitequark.org"; x-sender="whitequark@whitequark.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail.whitequark.org) identity=helo; client-ip=176.58.103.125; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="whitequark@whitequark.org"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.whitequark.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CmBwChfCdX/31nOrBdhAt9AYJytHSCHYF2JIVsAoFqEgEBAQEBAQEBZCeCLYIUAQEBAwEjDwEFQRAEBwkPAgImAgIsHQ4ZCIgNAwoMCqoQi3wihDkBAQgCHnyFJIMvgR6CXoIrgjSCVgEEiAGGRkKJC4Iag2KIFYI8jFyHZYdMJwc0g245MIkHAQEB X-IPAS-Result: A0CmBwChfCdX/31nOrBdhAt9AYJytHSCHYF2JIVsAoFqEgEBAQEBAQEBZCeCLYIUAQEBAwEjDwEFQRAEBwkPAgImAgIsHQ4ZCIgNAwoMCqoQi3wihDkBAQgCHnyFJIMvgR6CXoIrgjSCVgEEiAGGRkKJC4Iag2KIFYI8jFyHZYdMJwc0g245MIkHAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,568,1454972400"; d="scan'208";a="216664760" Received: from fehu.whitequark.org (HELO mail.whitequark.org) ([176.58.103.125]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 May 2016 18:15:16 +0200 Received: by mail.whitequark.org (Postfix, from userid 33) id 0AA8B10CA78; Mon, 2 May 2016 16:15:16 +0000 (UTC) To: picflo_2@web.de X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1000:rcube.php MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 19:15:16 +0300 From: whitequark Cc: schoepp@tcs.ifi.lmu.de, caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: References: , <5719E4F4.1070203@tcs.ifi.lmu.de> Message-ID: <58ec94d13dc4bc534bfb1e180822b966@whitequark.org> X-Sender: whitequark@whitequark.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.5 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] LLVM debug information On 2016-04-22 12:51, picflo_2@web.de wrote: > Hi, > > thanks for the link seems promising. > > There shouldn't be then any objective to make a pull request to move > this or a copy of it into the > llvm/include/llvm-c folder? From there on we could work on the missing > ocaml bindings Exposing DIBuilder to llvm-c properly is somewhat complicated and what you propose was considered and rejected over two years ago. However, there is ongoing work to bring debug information to LLVM-C and you may watch it on http://reviews.llvm.org/D19088. After that's merged the OCaml part is straightforward. > > Best, > Florian > > GESENDET: Freitag, 22. April 2016 um 10:46 Uhr > VON: "Ulrich Schöpp" > AN: caml-list@inria.fr > BETREFF: Re: [Caml-list] LLVM debug information > Hi, > > have you seen that the go bindings already contain a C wrapper for the > DIBuilder class? > > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/bindings/go/llvm/DIBuilderBindings.h > > It contains this comment: > > // FIXME: These bindings shouldn't be Go-specific and should > eventually > // move to a (somewhat) less stable collection of C APIs for use in > // creating bindings of LLVM in other languages. > > I would also be interested in OCaml bindings for this. > > Best, > Ulrich > > On 21/04/16 23:07, picflo_2@web.de wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> at the company I currently work for LLVM is used for the backend of > a >> DSL. Since this DSL is missing a debugger >> i was looking into this topic and what would actually be missing to > add >> the required information to use something like >> lldb or gdb or even link it to the Visual Studio MI Debug Engine to >> debug the resulting code. If I understand it correctly >> the OCaml LLVM bindings only give access to the IRBuilder class and > not >> the required DIBuilder class? Would it be sufficient >> to add at first the C wrapper for the DIBuilder class and then the > OCaml >> bindings using these C wrapper to add debug information >> to the offical LLVM repo to start writing a DSL specific debugger > using >> OCaml? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Florian -- whitequark