search for: freunde

Hi, There's several, to my eyes, somewhat related looking bugs: Bug 36743 - Cannot select: X86ISD::CALL ICE with -mx32 -O2 -fno-plt https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36743 Bug 34268 - JITting of x32 code on x64 fails with crash or instruction selection error. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34268 There's unfortunately been no investigation. I'm asking because I hit

On 05/05/18 17:58, Andres Freund wrote: > You're building LLVM with assertions enabled > (-DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON). > Some of those are fairly expensive... > Is there another way to get LLVM to check the correctness of my IR without the assertions? That's what I'm assuming I need the flag for (it's been a long time since I experimented with it) If there is no way

Hi, On 2020-09-25 16:38:41 -0700, Andres Freund via llvm-dev wrote: > On 2020-09-24 16:34:30 -0700, Lang Hames wrote: > > If anyone wants to check out the OrcV1 removal branch and provide feedback > > now is the time. Otherwise I will aim to land the work in the mainline > > early next week. > > I'm trying to get it to work with postgres. Unfortunately this week

Hi Andres, A topic that I'd find interesting is what it'd take to make it easier to > use profile guided optimization in the context of JIT. A few years back > I crudely hacked this together, but it was fairly ugly. It'd be nice to > make that easier. Possibly too complicated for that type of session? We couldn't go into detail, but we could kick off a discussion and

Thanks for the tip - getting closer: $ ./capi_test 5 6 args[0]: 5 args[1]: 6 result: 4294959200 Here's the code I changed: printf("args[0]: %d\n", (int)LLVMGenericValueToInt(args[0], 0)); printf("args[1]: %d\n", (int)LLVMGenericValueToInt(args[1], 0)); uint64_t (*func)(); func = (uint64_t (*)())LLVMGetFunctionAddress(engine, "sum");

Hi All, The 2020 Virtual LLVM Developer's Meeting is coming up the week after next. I'll be hosting a JIT Birds-of-a-Feather session on Thursday the 8th at 10:55am PDT (See http://llvm.org/devmtg/2020-09/schedule/). I'm planning to run this more like a Round Table: Minimal introduction, plenty of time for discussion. Does anyone have any LLVM JIT related topics that they would

Andres: FWIW, codegen will do the merge if you turn on global alias analysis for it "-combiner-global-alias-analysis". That said, we should be able to do this merging earlier. -Nirav On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Andres Freund via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On 2018-09-10 13:42:21 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > I have, in postres,

Hi, I would like to discuss the future/potential use-cases of LLVM JIT. I'm also interested in reducing the compilation time of code in JIT component independent of static compiler. Is it sounds interesting? :) On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 07:49, Andres Freund <andres at anarazel.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On 2020-09-25 19:05:42 -0700, Lang Hames wrote: > > The 2020 Virtual LLVM

Hi All, I've listed the current topics of interest below, along with some notes on each. We only have 30 minutes so we'll barely scratch the surface of these during the BoF itself. My main aims are for you to meet each other, identify potential areas of collaboration, identify things that I can do to unblock you, and get the ball rolling on some conversations that we can continue on the

Hi Andres, Postgres uses removable code support and Orcv1. I does make me quite > worried to see a phase where there'll be no viable way of using both in > llvm. Why isn't the right answer here to at lest develop the > replacement as a set of patches / as a branch that then can be merged as > a whole / shortly after each other, rather than just starting to develop > a

Hi Andres, Cool!I assume this works on "non-native" jitlink platforms as well? Or > just mach? This framework is totally materializer agnostic -- It works for ObjectLinkingLayer (JITLink), RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer (RuntimeDyld), and even materializers that aren't emitted via a linker (e.g. stubs and callbacks). Looks like there's not yet a C API yet - not a problem, just

Hi, On 2018-05-06 00:19:42 +0200, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > On 05/05/18 17:58, Andres Freund wrote: > > You're building LLVM with assertions enabled > > (-DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON). > > Some of those are fairly expensive... > > > > Is there another way to get LLVM to check the correctness of my IR > without the assertions? That's what I'm

On 06/05/18 00:21, Andres Freund wrote: > That's what I do (using Orc to JIT parts of SQL queries). By default I > have the debug build of postgres linked against debug LLVM w/ > assertions, and the optimized build against an optimized LLVM wo/ > assertions (albeit with symbols). I've tried a builld with assertions off and it has only a relatively minor impact (a 10% drop in

Hmm. This looks like the backend conservatively giving up early on merging. It looks like you're running clang 5.02. There have been some improvements to the backend's memory aliasing and store merging that have landed since. Can you check if this is fixed in a newer version? -Nirav On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Andres Freund <andres at anarazel.de> wrote: > Hi, > >

Hi Geoff, Importing symbols into the JIT from an object file or static library...? Sure! Are you interested in doing this with the C API, LLJIT, or raw OrcV2 components? The high-level answer here (which we can dig into further in the BoF) is: For object files: - For raw OrcV2 components you'll want to create an RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer or ObjectLinkingLayer and use the 'add'

Hi there. I got myself a pair of old Intel Xeon blades, which I plan to repurpose with CentOS. The model is : HP bl20p-g3 server blade Manual http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12322_ca/12322_ca.pdf Now, the main problem with this hardware is that LVD UW SCSI HDDs are hard to find and hella expensive if you find em (and of reduced capacity). Any of you know: 1. If there's any

Hi, On 2020-09-29 13:58:35 -0700, Lang Hames wrote: > > Have the basics working. Should I open a PR to your branch for what I > > got so far? > Sounds good to me. Done, https://github.com/lhames/llvm-project/pull/2 . > The first is to expose more of symbol resolution. Postgres can be > > extended via dynamically loaded libraries, and we need to be careful to > >

Hi: In our frontend we are attempting to build a lock mechanism without using system apis like pthreads and whatnot for internal reasons. In order to achieve this we are now creating a int32 type GV, and then use atomic load/store and comparisons. The generated IR looks like the following: ``` @Flag = private global i32 0, align 4 %0 = load atomic i32, i32* @Flag acquire, align 4 %1 = icmp eq

Hi Geoff, We use LLJIT. Do addObjectFile() and StaticLibraryDefinitionGenerator work > for ELF objects? They do. :) I've not tested StaticLibraryDefinitionGenerator extensively on Linux. but we have a regression test checking basic usage. If you run into any trouble at all please file a bug and assign it to me. -- Lang. On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Geoff Levner <glevner at

Hi, On 2020-09-30 17:52:46 -0700, Lang Hames wrote: > I've just realised that we're going to need a change to the definition > generator API in the long term: Right now it is called under the session > lock, but we want to shift to calling it outside the lock and passing a > lookup-continuation. This would allow definition discovery to take an > arbitrarily long time