search for: jitting

I'm trying to use PerfJITEventListener with llvm::orc::LLJITBuilder: 1. perf record -o /tmp/perf.data -- <my_binary_with_event_listener> 2. perf inject -j -v -i /tmp/perf.data -o /tmp/perf.data.jit *jit marker found: ~.debug/jit/llvm-IR-jit-20200417-3c2242/jit-149849.dump* *injecting: ~/.debug/jit/llvm-IR-jit-20200417-3c2242/jit-149849.dump* *write ELF image

...1 = add nsw i32 %0, 10 ; <i32> [#uses=1] ret i32 %1 } declare void @add1(i32*) *** When using llvm::DebugFlag=true JIT gives me following debug messages: ********** Function: main Ifcvt: function (0) 'main' block 0 offset 0 size 40 block 0 offset 0 size 40 JITTing function 'main' JIT: Starting CodeGen of Function main JIT: Emitting BB0 at [0x4512e010] JIT: 0x4512e010: STM %SP, 12, 14, %reg0, %R11<kill>, %LR<kill> 0xe92d4800 JIT: 0x4512e014: %SP<def> = SUBri %SP<kill>, 8, 14, %reg0, %reg0 0xe24dd008 JIT: 0x4512e018: %R0<...

I have done a possible cleanup patch for the MachineCodeEmitter, ELFWriter, and MachOWriter classes. It removes the two startGVStub(), and finishGVStub() JIT specific methods. You may remember the following comments :- /// JIT SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS - DO NOT IMPLEMENT THESE HERE! To get rid of these easily turned out to be a semicomplex modification because of the JITInfo classes dependance on

...ne in JITResolver::JITCompilerFn, and change the "only > one JIT" check to say something about "only one JIT compiling lazily". > > I don't think this change will require passing an LLVMContext to the > JIT--it should just use the Context of the function it's jitting. > > The code freeze for llvm-2.7 is on Feb 21 (this probably isn't a > "major" change), so if you want it in the 2.7 release, please try to > mail the patch well ahead of that. > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Olivier Meurant > <meurant.olivier at gmail.com...

2010/1/22 James Williams <junk at giantblob.com> > > > 2010/1/22 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> > >> Hi James, >> >> >> want to send us your testcase code? Then we can give it a whirl. >>> >>> >>> Test code is at http://giantblob.com/ehtest.tar.gz >>> >>> Thanks for the help. I apologize in

...r::JITCompilerFn, and change the "only >> one JIT" check to say something about "only one JIT compiling lazily". >> >> I don't think this change will require passing an LLVMContext to the >> JIT--it should just use the Context of the function it's jitting. >> >> The code freeze for llvm-2.7 is on Feb 21 (this probably isn't a >> "major" change), so if you want it in the 2.7 release, please try to >> mail the patch well ahead of that. >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Olivier Meurant >> <...

Hi everyone ! If I call ExecutionEngine::createJIT (or EngineBuilder::create) more than one time, the second time fails on a assertion "Multiple JIT resolvers?". It seems that the JIT is designed to be a singleton in the process, and I was wondering if it was something mandatory. How hard will it be to make it a non-singleton object ? Is this a JIT-only problem (work needed on JIT

...d change the "only > >> one JIT" check to say something about "only one JIT compiling lazily". > >> > >> I don't think this change will require passing an LLVMContext to the > >> JIT--it should just use the Context of the function it's jitting. > >> > >> The code freeze for llvm-2.7 is on Feb 21 (this probably isn't a > >> "major" change), so if you want it in the 2.7 release, please try to > >> mail the patch well ahead of that. > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 5:47 AM,...

...er except for the one in JITResolver::JITCompilerFn, and change the "only one JIT" check to say something about "only one JIT compiling lazily". I don't think this change will require passing an LLVMContext to the JIT--it should just use the Context of the function it's jitting. The code freeze for llvm-2.7 is on Feb 21 (this probably isn't a "major" change), so if you want it in the 2.7 release, please try to mail the patch well ahead of that. On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Olivier Meurant <meurant.olivier at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone ! &g...

Hi folks! I am currently involved in project which uses LLVM JIT and I have a couple of questions for you: 1) According to http://llvm.org/Features.html LLVM JIT supports only X86 and PowerPC, but LLVM code generator supports ARM too. Are there any plans for JIT to make support also for ARM backend? 2) Could LLVM JIT collect some hot traces from overall code and execute it separately (after

While the MCJIT doesn't cover all of the features the old JIT had, it has the huge advantage of actually producing working results on ARM and PPC64. The old JIT for non-x86 has bit-rotted a lot, to the point of crashing even for simple examples. I'm proposing to remove the JIT code emitters for the ARM and PPC targets now so it's no longer holding back the development of the MC parts

Hello, I am currently working with PPC64 JIT support for LLVM. So far I could make function calls work by adding function descriptors in 'lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCJITInfo.h' and adding a virtual method at 'LLVM::TargetJITInfo' that is called within 'JITEmitter::finishFunction' just after 'sys::Memory::InvalidateInstructionCache' to update the Global Mapping with

I'll look at these. First scan looks good. Are you able to run some tests? Evan On Feb 28, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: > I have done a possible cleanup patch for the MachineCodeEmitter, > ELFWriter, and MachOWriter classes. It removes the two > startGVStub(), and finishGVStub() JIT specific methods. > > You may remember the following comments :- > >

On Oct 28, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > From where I sit, this boils down to a very simple question (modulo > Chris's point): Either choice will surprise some users. Which surprise > is worse? Personally, I'd always prefer correct but slow behavior by > default, and explicitly enabling dangerous (but in some cases fast) > behavior. The behavior is only

Hi Garrison, I finally come back from holidays and take time to watch your patch. I must say that I largely prefer this version over the previous one ! I like the reuse of getLazyFunctionStub, but I don't know if the forceEmitFunctionStub is still needed ? I thought about JIT and modules, and I wonder if we don't need to take it another way. Now we can create multiples JIT. What if we

Hi Adhemerval Zanella, the old JIT infrastructure is going away, to be replaced by "MC-JIT" (try passing -use-mcjit to lli). It sounds like you are working on the old JIT, so I suggest you work instead on getting MC-JIT working on powerpc. Ciao, Duncan. > I am currently working with PPC64 JIT support for LLVM. So far I could make function calls > work by adding function

Hi James, > want to send us your testcase code? Then we can give it a whirl. > > > Test code is at http://giantblob.com/ehtest.tar.gz > > Thanks for the help. I apologize in advance if it turns out I'm doing > something stupid! I hope you realise that by running llvm-ld without -native you are actually executing your program from the JIT. I did a native

Hi, all It seems PPC JIT does not recognize inline assembly. For example, when I give LLVM IR belows to PPC JIT, %0 = tail call i32* asm "", "={r10}"() nounwind ; <i32*> [#uses=1] it complaints that inline assembly is not a supported instruction. x86 JIT works fine, however. Is there a reason that makes PPC JIT not support inline assembly? Currently, we

This is the second version of a patch, which I recently attached to bug 2606, whose original version was modified to reflect the lists comments. Also please note the comment at the end of this email, which basically questions whether this bug is really a bug. 1) To solve the foreign Module GlobalVariable problem, I modified JIT::getOrEmitGlobalVariable(...) to directly attempt to map a found

Hi James, Note that the wiki example is a manual JIT example that works directly with the C++ APIs. As you know, no LLVM tools are used, just LLVM libraries. I say this to point out, that in the example, the exception mechanism is under the complete control of the developer moded by the LLVM libraries. In my mind a different example/different doc. would be needed to explain how a bit code