similar to: Rationale for the object cache design?

Hello, Am I right in thinking that MCJIT doesn't support thread-local variables (at least not on Linux x86-64)? Is there any plan or pending PR to support it (either in MCJIT or in ORC)? Thank you, Regards Antoine.

Thanks, happy to of confirmed. With that in mind, will use the AST modules provided by the languages (with the exception of libclang for C++). Antoine: Am aware of Numba, nice job there BTW. So is there a [decoupled] LLVM parser which I can use to read Python files and analyse objects (including computing their attributes in OO and setattr scenarios)? On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Antoine

I had tried this in https://reviews.llvm.org/D8815, but we've since switched to a home grown TLS implementation, so I currently don't have a need for this. On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Alex Denisov via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > /cc Lang Hames > > > On 17 Aug 2016, at 19:27, Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

Yep we have our own parser <https://github.com/vinzenz/libpypa/> and we would love to see other people use it. When we looked around at some other Python parsers we didn't feel like any of them were easy to extract and use on their own, so we wrote our own and I think were able to keep ours well-separated. There are some things that make parsing Python somewhat difficult to do in a

2016-01-20 1:11 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:47:56 +0200 > "Eddy B. via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > I would love to know your thoughts on this, and more specifically: > > Which of the 3 (byval(T), byval(N) and byval + dereferenceable + align) > > do you

IIRC when LLVM came out a bunch of community-contributed parsers were available on your website. Essentially I want to read in a programming language, prune the AST until it contains only what I define as a "summary", then convert that AST to that of another language, before finally outputting [code-generating] a compilable/interpretable source [think boilerplate]. Would be good to

On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:40:44 +0100 David Chisnall via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The end result is that shortly after a release (sometimes every alternate release) is branched a load of downstream projects update to the new APIs, test things, and find a bunch of regressions that have been sitting in the tree for months. We then have to scrabble to bisect and try

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:17 -0600 > Wei Ding via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I want an efficient way to implement function pow in LLVM instead of >> invoking pow() math built-in. For algorithm part, I am clear for the

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Antoine Pitrou <antoine at python.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan <at> ochtman.nl> writes: > > > > As far as I understand, this change is wanted because the LLVM > > infrastructure derives no value from knowing the types, and there's a > > cost in terms of code spent to support all of it.

Hi there, Sorry, I don't have the thread history to reply to since I normally read llvmdev through the archives, but wanted to give my .02 of feedback anyway. As far as I understand, this change is wanted because the LLVM infrastructure derives no value from knowing the types, and there's a cost in terms of code spent to support all of it. I've been creating a frontend that mostly

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 1/12/2017 9:33 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: >>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:17 -0600 >>> Wei Ding via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

Hal Finkel <hfinkel <at> anl.gov> writes: > > Do you require long-term cross-release ABI and/or API stability > from the C API that you're using? Do these > other projects? For the record, in llvmlite and Numba we don't require C API stability for two reasons: 1) the C API is not enough for us and we rely on bits of the C++ API 2) we also rely on other details

yeah i m concerned about jit compilation time.. On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:57 PM Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes I think so.. Could you please tell me in which context (compile time > improvement)? That is whether you are interested in knowing whether having > ORC instead of MCJIT, will increase your LLVM Build time or you are > concerned

Hi Christian Your use case seems to have similar requirements as remote JITing in ORC. So far I haven't used that part myself and I am sure Lang can tell you much more about it. However, this comment on the RemoteObjectClientLayer class sounds promising for your questions (1) and (2): /// Sending relocatable objects to the server (rather than fully relocated /// bits) allows JIT'd code

+ MLIR dev mailing list since that’s where the OrcJit I’m using is. Thanks for all the details, Lang! What you described is exactly what I’m looking for! Please, MLIR dev, let me know if this debug feature and the solution that Lang describes below is interesting for MLIR. I’ll dig more into the details then but it doesn’t seem too complicated. Thanks, Diego From: Lang Hames [mailto:lhames at

Hi, I want an efficient way to implement function pow in LLVM instead of invoking pow() math built-in. For algorithm part, I am clear for the logic. But I am not quite sure for which parts of LLVM should I replace built-in pow with another efficient pow implementation. Any comments and feedback are appreciated. Thanks! -- Wei Ding -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hi Again, I'm a little confused regarding what is the exact Orc's functions I should use in order to save the functions code in a code cache so it could be later replaced with different versions of it and I appreciate your help. Just a reminder I want to dynamically recompile the program based on profile collected at the run-time. I would like to start executing the program from the

Hello, I haven't found any relevant info in the docs about this. I'm trying to build LLVM 3.7.1 on OS X but it fails in the configuration phase. Here are the relevant parts of the output: $ cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/Volumes/HD2/jenkins/workspace/LLVMDev/label/osxbuild/miniconda/envs/_build -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=host -DLLVM_INCLUDE_TESTS=OFF

Hi, All I m not sure if this question has been asked or not. I'd like cache the MCJIT compiled object into memory buffer so it can be reused later. I followed the Andy Kaylor's example wrote an inherited class from ObjectCache and use raw_fd_ostream to save the cache and load the cache from a file. I checked raw_ostream and its subclass, maybe I am wrong but I don't see one is fit to

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>wrote: > Hi Dmitri, > > Regarding your first question, if you can use the MCJIT engine a caching > mechanism will be available very soon. I'm preparing to commit a patch > today to add this capability. I'm not sure what it would take to get > something similar working with the older JIT