Hi Lang, I'm looking at extending the compilation passes used in the LLILC JIT and it seems like the simplest thing is to make a copy of the SimpleCompiler functor into the LLILC code and then modify it for the phases I want to run. But I was wondering if this was the best approach. Do you expect different clients to create their own compiler functors or do you imagine that SimpleCompiler will be joined by more sophisticated siblings that are more configurable with respect to what's run phase wise? Initial PR of the copied code (prior to us starting to modify it) is here: https://github.com/dotnet/llilc/pull/685 Thanks, -R -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150706/0362192e/attachment.html>
Hi Russell, SimpleCompiler is just a baseline/proof-of-concept. My hope is that it will be joined by more sophisticated compiler classes. If you are interested in contributing such a class back to the LLVM mainline that would be much appreciated. :) Cheers, Lang. On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Russell Hadley <rhadley at microsoft.com> wrote:> Hi Lang, > > > > I’m looking at extending the compilation passes used in the LLILC JIT and > it seems like the simplest thing is to make a copy of the SimpleCompiler > functor into the LLILC code and then modify it for the phases I want to > run. But I was wondering if this was the best approach. Do you expect > different clients to create their own compiler functors or do you imagine > that SimpleCompiler will be joined by more sophisticated siblings that are > more configurable with respect to what’s run phase wise? > > > > Initial PR of the copied code (prior to us starting to modify it) is here: > https://github.com/dotnet/llilc/pull/685 > > > > Thanks, > > > > -R >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150706/199c78d6/attachment.html>
Thanks, I’ll see what I can put together. -R From: Lang Hames [mailto:lhames at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 1:57 PM To: Russell Hadley Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Customizing module compilation in ORC JITs Hi Russell, SimpleCompiler is just a baseline/proof-of-concept. My hope is that it will be joined by more sophisticated compiler classes. If you are interested in contributing such a class back to the LLVM mainline that would be much appreciated. :) Cheers, Lang. On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Russell Hadley <rhadley at microsoft.com<mailto:rhadley at microsoft.com>> wrote: Hi Lang, I’m looking at extending the compilation passes used in the LLILC JIT and it seems like the simplest thing is to make a copy of the SimpleCompiler functor into the LLILC code and then modify it for the phases I want to run. But I was wondering if this was the best approach. Do you expect different clients to create their own compiler functors or do you imagine that SimpleCompiler will be joined by more sophisticated siblings that are more configurable with respect to what’s run phase wise? Initial PR of the copied code (prior to us starting to modify it) is here: https://github.com/dotnet/llilc/pull/685 Thanks, -R -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150706/0ef3ff7d/attachment.html>