llvm dev - Feb 2010 - [LLVMdev] another experimental patch for bug 2606

Hey all,

Attached you will find an experimental patch which allows me to play with a
derived JIT class. With this patch
I've alleviated my concerns with forcing cross module behavior for all users
of JIT. However this introduces some
new semantics, and kind of circumvents the EngineBuilder API. More important
though, I have not addressed
any concern about using stub functions in eager compilation mode. I don't
yet understand this concern since
these stubs are compile time only, and it seems that the pending function system
inherently uses stubs. Anyway
I'm sure my understanding will get fixed soon enough. :-) The new code is
NOT commented.

This patch was NOT attached to 2606. Rather I feel this patch is experimental in
nature. As before I tried to use "GMV Mod"
as comments to mark my modifications as long as they did not involve introducing
new files. If one is interested and wants
to use this patch, one should use the test cases found in  2606 and modify them
in the following ways.

1) Add: #include "llvm/ExecutionEngine/CrossModuleJIT.h"
2) Add the call: LLVMSetupForCrossModuleJITUse();
	before using the EngineBuilder API

For example take:

	ExecutionEngine* EE = EngineBuilder(M).create();

and turn it into:

	LLVMSetupForCrossModuleJITUse();
	ExecutionEngine* EE = EngineBuilder(M).create();

I wrote this somewhat fast so caveat emptor.

Garrison

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100226/87fda390/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PR2606.experimental.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 11233 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100226/87fda390/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100226/87fda390/attachment-0001.html>

Eek! I'm going to lose track of the threads if you start a new one
every time you update the patch. Consider using
http://codereview.appspot.com/?

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at
gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all,
> Attached you will find an experimental patch which allows me to play with a
> derived JIT class. With this patch
> I've alleviated my concerns with forcing cross module behavior for all
users
> of JIT. However this introduces some
> new semantics, and kind of circumvents the EngineBuilder API. More
important
> though, I have not addressed
> any concern about using stub functions in eager compilation mode. I
don't
> yet understand this concern since
> these stubs are compile time only, and it seems that the pending function
> system inherently uses stubs. Anyway
> I'm sure my understanding will get fixed soon enough. :-) The new code
is
> NOT commented.
> This patch was NOT attached to 2606. Rather I feel this patch
> is experimental in nature. As before I tried to use "GMV Mod"
> as comments to mark my modifications as long as they did not
> involve introducing new files. If one is interested and wants
> to use this patch, one should use the test cases found in  2606 and modify
> them in the following ways.
> 1) Add: #include "llvm/ExecutionEngine/CrossModuleJIT.h"
> 2) Add the call: LLVMSetupForCrossModuleJITUse();
> before using the EngineBuilder API
> For example take:
> ExecutionEngine* EE = EngineBuilder(M).create();
> and turn it into:
> LLVMSetupForCrossModuleJITUse();
> ExecutionEngine* EE = EngineBuilder(M).create();
> I wrote this somewhat fast so caveat emptor.
> Garrison
>
>
>

FWIW, I don't like the idea of adding a new JIT class to support
linking. I think you can do it without this.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at
gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all,
> Attached you will find an experimental patch which allows me to play with a
> derived JIT class. With this patch
> I've alleviated my concerns with forcing cross module behavior for all
users
> of JIT. However this introduces some
> new semantics, and kind of circumvents the EngineBuilder API. More
important
> though, I have not addressed
> any concern about using stub functions in eager compilation mode. I
don't
> yet understand this concern since
> these stubs are compile time only, and it seems that the pending function
> system inherently uses stubs. Anyway
> I'm sure my understanding will get fixed soon enough. :-) The new code
is
> NOT commented.
> This patch was NOT attached to 2606. Rather I feel this patch
> is experimental in nature. As before I tried to use "GMV Mod"
> as comments to mark my modifications as long as they did not
> involve introducing new files. If one is interested and wants
> to use this patch, one should use the test cases found in  2606 and modify
> them in the following ways.
> 1) Add: #include "llvm/ExecutionEngine/CrossModuleJIT.h"
> 2) Add the call: LLVMSetupForCrossModuleJITUse();
> before using the EngineBuilder API
> For example take:
> ExecutionEngine* EE = EngineBuilder(M).create();
> and turn it into:
> LLVMSetupForCrossModuleJITUse();
> ExecutionEngine* EE = EngineBuilder(M).create();
> I wrote this somewhat fast so caveat emptor.
> Garrison
>
>
>

Will do

Garrison

On Feb 26, 2010, at 21:18, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> Eek! I'm going to lose track of the threads if you start a new one
> every time you update the patch. Consider using
> http://codereview.appspot.com/?
> 
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at
gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey all,
>> Attached you will find an experimental patch which allows me to play
with a
>> derived JIT class. With this patch
>> I've alleviated my concerns with forcing cross module behavior for
all users
>> of JIT. However this introduces some
>> new semantics, and kind of circumvents the EngineBuilder API. More
important
>> though, I have not addressed
>> any concern about using stub functions in eager compilation mode. I
don't
>> yet understand this concern since
>> these stubs are compile time only, and it seems that the pending
function
>> system inherently uses stubs. Anyway
>> I'm sure my understanding will get fixed soon enough. :-) The new
code is
>> NOT commented.
>> This patch was NOT attached to 2606. Rather I feel this patch
>> is experimental in nature. As before I tried to use "GMV Mod"
>> as comments to mark my modifications as long as they did not
>> involve introducing new files. If one is interested and wants
>> to use this patch, one should use the test cases found in  2606 and
modify
>> them in the following ways.
>> 1) Add: #include "llvm/ExecutionEngine/CrossModuleJIT.h"
>> 2) Add the call: LLVMSetupForCrossModuleJITUse();
>> before using the EngineBuilder API
>> For example take:
>> ExecutionEngine* EE = EngineBuilder(M).create();
>> and turn it into:
>> LLVMSetupForCrossModuleJITUse();
>> ExecutionEngine* EE = EngineBuilder(M).create();
>> I wrote this somewhat fast so caveat emptor.
>> Garrison
>> 
>> 
>>

No problem I'll drop this from our discussion as it really is only germane
to my
learning path and imagination. :-) I do at this time still have this concern of
allowing a user (developer) the right to turn this "cross module
linkage" off, but
I'm still in the process of understanding your previous comments on this.

Thanks again for the help and time by the way.

Garrison

PS: I'm still studying your last detailed comments to thread:
"2nd attempt for a working patch for bug 2606". I'll keep 
that one alive.
 
On Feb 26, 2010, at 21:23, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> FWIW, I don't like the idea of adding a new JIT class to support
> linking. I think you can do it without this.
> 
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at
gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey all,
>> Attached you will find an experimental patch which allows me to play
with a
>> derived JIT class. With this patch
>> I've alleviated my concerns with forcing cross module behavior for
all users
>> of JIT. However this introduces some
>> new semantics, and kind of circumvents the EngineBuilder API. More
important
>> though, I have not addressed
>> any concern about using stub functions in eager compilation mode. I
don't
>> yet understand this concern since
>> these stubs are compile time only, and it seems that the pending
function
>> system inherently uses stubs. Anyway
>> I'm sure my understanding will get fixed soon enough. :-) The new
code is
>> NOT commented.
>> This patch was NOT attached to 2606. Rather I feel this patch
>> is experimental in nature. As before I tried to use "GMV Mod"
>> as comments to mark my modifications as long as they did not
>> involve introducing new files. If one is interested and wants
>> to use this patch, one should use the test cases found in  2606 and
modify
>> them in the following ways.
>> 1) Add: #include "llvm/ExecutionEngine/CrossModuleJIT.h"
>> 2) Add the call: LLVMSetupForCrossModuleJITUse();
>> before using the EngineBuilder API
>> For example take:
>> ExecutionEngine* EE = EngineBuilder(M).create();
>> and turn it into:
>> LLVMSetupForCrossModuleJITUse();
>> ExecutionEngine* EE = EngineBuilder(M).create();
>> I wrote this somewhat fast so caveat emptor.
>> Garrison
>> 
>> 
>>