(ccing llvmdev) Hi Ranjit! I only ported Chris's tutorial and Gordon
did the vast majority of the bindings, so they deserve most of the
praise. I believe there are techniques for walking over the CFG. You
can load up code using Llvm_bitreader, use things like
Llvm.iter_globals, Llvm.iter_functions, and Llvm.iter_instrs to walk
over the module, and write out a new llmodule using Llvm_bitwriter. Is
there something more specific you want to do?
Hi,
thanks Chris and Gordon for the fantasic infrastructure and ocaml bindings and Erick for the prompt response!
I'm looking to use LLVM to write program analyses for
C/C++ programs, but to use Ocaml to write the analyses.
I did see there were bindings for iterating over:
* functions in a module [iter_functions]
* basic blocks in a functions [iter_blocks]
* instructions in a block [iter_instrs]
The other things that i'd like are to know what kind of
instruction a given instruction was.
That is,
(a) some ML encoding of the different opcodes like
Instruction::Ret:
Instruction::Invoke:
Instruction::Call:
Instruction::Malloc:
Instruction::Alloca:
etc.
e.g. encoded as an Ocaml type "llinstr" ?
(b) ML bindings for functions like Instruction::getOpcode
e.g. functions like
val instr_of_value : llvalue -> llinstr
val value_is_instr : llvalue -> bool
etc.
Are these available somewhere ?
Even if they are not, I am happy to try to add these bindings ...
Thanks!,
-Ranjit.
thanks Chris and Gordon for the fantasic infrastructure and ocaml
bindings and Erick for the prompt response!I'm looking to use LLVM to write program analyses for
C/C++ programs, but to use Ocaml to write the analyses.
I did see there were bindings for iterating over:* functions in a module [iter_functions]
* basic blocks in a functions [iter_blocks]
* instructions in a block [iter_instrs]The other things that i'd like are to know what kind of
instruction a given instruction was.
Hi Ranjit,
There are recently aded C bindings for the "isa<>" template (actually, dyn_cast_or_null<>), which is usually the preferred manner to access the type ID. There are no corresponding ocaml bindings yet. I think this is the most important missing feature for what you've described; most of the instruction properties have getters and setters.
Re exposing the type ID as an Ocaml variant type, consider that there is no type ID for Instruction, since it is abstract; matching an instruction would therefore be extremely inconvenient, and would be brittle with respect to additions or changes to the Value class hierarchy.
llinstr
Adding Ocaml types for each llvm::Value class seems inadvisable to me. You can certainly try it, but I expect the result would be unusably cumbersome.
— Gordon
The bindings I am missing are:
. Cannot set the global to enable tail calls.
. Cannot set "sret".
However, I'd be happy if there were just C bindings that I could invoke from
JIT compiled code from OCaml on-the-fly. So it is probably much more valuable
to work on completing the C bindings, IMHO.