llvm dev - Feb 2011 - [LLVMdev] Announcing: LLVM 2.9 Tentative Release Schedule

On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote:
> Will MC path for JNI be included in 2.9?
>    
Sorry. I meant: Will MC path for JIT be included in 2.9?

On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Yuri wrote:
> On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote:
>> Will MC path for JNI be included in 2.9?
>> 
> 
> Sorry. I meant: Will MC path for JIT be included in 2.9?
While it would be nice, it doesn't seem like anyone is working on it at the
moment.

-Chris

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Yuri wrote:
>
> > On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote:
> >> Will MC path for JNI be included in 2.9?
> >>
> >
> > Sorry. I meant: Will MC path for JIT be included in 2.9?
>
> While it would be nice, it doesn't seem like anyone is working on it at
the
> moment.
>
> -Chris

What about this:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20110207/116194.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110220/a46112bf/attachment.html>

----- Original Message ----
> From: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
> To: Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com>
> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 3:26:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Announcing: LLVM 2.9 Tentative Release Schedule
> 
> 
> On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Yuri wrote:
> 
> > On 02/19/2011 14:52,  Yuri wrote:
> >> Will MC path for JNI be included in 2.9?
> >> 
> > 
> > Sorry. I meant: Will MC path for JIT be included in  2.9?
> 
> While it would be nice, it doesn't seem like anyone is working on it 
at the
>moment.
> 
> -Chris
> 
I have been working on my own stuff this month. This is still not the 
"proper"
solution that has been proposed for MCJIT. I posted some  patches a few weeks 
ago, but since there was no response I continued to  work anyway. I decided to 
try and reuse the ELF code emission as much as  possible to be able to run gdb 
on the generated code. By refactoring  the code for MCELFStreamer and 
ELFObjectWriter I am now able to  generate code in memory and the code can be 
executed and debugged with  dgb. With a bit more cleanup I believe it is 
possible to get a "JIT" (it  generates code for a whole module) with
just a few
hundred lines of  code. I'm not sure if this is what people want in general
but
it works  for my application. 


- Jan