search for: moduleprovid

> Consider the case where a function creates and populates a Module, stuffs it > in an ExistingModuleProvider for the JIT, then returns the ModuleProvider, > dropping direct reference to the Module. (ModuleProvider takes ownership of > the Module.) I presume that your Python object is under the impression it > owns the Module; when that goes out of scope, its refcount goes to zero and > it in...

On May 12, 2008, at 02:58, Mahadevan R wrote: >> Consider the case where a function creates and populates a Module, >> stuffs it in an ExistingModuleProvider for the JIT, then returns >> the ModuleProvider, dropping direct reference to the Module. >> (ModuleProvider takes ownership of the Module.) I presume that your >> Python object is under the impression it owns the Module; when that >> goes out of scope, its refcoun...

Thanks for the reply. I actually managed to resolve this problem mostly to my satisfaction. I suspect based on your description of materializeFunction I may be best served by subclassing the ModuleProvider to do what I want. Thanks again. --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > From: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] ModuleProvider materializeFunction > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.ui...

...ng wrote: > I have tracing the calls to materializeFunction in the LLVM code in > hopes of determining how to properly utilize this function but from > my explorations I gather it's just a hook which is called by the JIT > system and I would mostly have to do the work myself. ModuleProvider is a very simple concept. You can either load an entire module at once (e.g. with ParseBitcodeFile) or you can load just the outline and load functions on demand (with getBitcodeModuleProvider). This allows clients to lazily load functions as they are needed instead of loading everythin...

I have tracing the calls to materializeFunction in the LLVM code in hopes of determining how to properly utilize this function but from my explorations I gather it's just a hook which is called by the JIT system and I would mostly have to do the work myself. What is the preferred way to inject a llvm:Function which contains basic blocks into the Module + JIT? My understanding (perhaps

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > On May 12, 2008, at 02:58, Mahadevan R wrote: > > >> Consider the case where a function creates and populates a Module, > >> stuffs it in an ExistingModuleProvider for the JIT, then returns > >> the ModuleProvider, dropping direct reference to the Module. > >> (ModuleProvider takes ownership of the Module.) I presume that your > >> Python object is under the impression it owns the Module; when that > >> goes out of sc...

...tomatic finalizers like this one are very dangerous when cooperating with the C++ object model: void dtor_LLVMModuleRef(void *p) { LLVMModuleRef m = (LLVMModuleRef)p; LLVMDisposeModule(m); } Consider the case where a function creates and populates a Module, stuffs it in an ExistingModuleProvider for the JIT, then returns the ModuleProvider, dropping direct reference to the Module. (ModuleProvider takes ownership of the Module.) I presume that your Python object is under the impression it owns the Module; when that goes out of scope, its refcount goes to zero and it invokes its dt...

Carter Cheng wrote: > I have tracing the calls to materializeFunction in the LLVM code in hopes of determining how to properly utilize this function but from my explorations I gather it's just a hook which is called by the JIT system and I would mostly have to do the work myself. > > What is the preferred way to inject a llvm:Function which contains basic blocks into the Module +

...r(int) + 470 1 libSystem.B.dylib 0x00007fff83ee10aa _sigtramp + 26 2 libSystem.B.dylib 0x0000000100a0b4ba _sigtramp + 2092082218 3 lli 0x00000001001e8374 llvm::ExecutionEngine::emitGlobals() + 6164 4 lli 0x00000001001dbd69 llvm::Interpreter::Interpreter (llvm::ModuleProvider*) + 185 5 lli 0x00000001001dbdd8 llvm::Interpreter::create (llvm::ModuleProvider*, std::string*, bool) + 56 6 lli 0x0000000100010803 main + 243 7 lli 0x00000001000106e8 start + 52 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scru...

...Function *F = cast<Function>(M->getOrInsertFunction("F", Type::Int32Ty, (Type*)0)); BasicBlock *BB = new BasicBlock("BB",F); new ReturnInst( ConstantInt::get(Type::Int32Ty,1), BB ); std::vector<GenericValue> Args(0); ExistingModuleProvider *MP = new ExistingModuleProvider(M); ExecutionEngine *EE = ExecutionEngine::create(MP, false); GenericValue GV = EE->runFunction(F, Args); delete EE; } } The memory goes up, and OS X leaks command returns pages of: Leak: 0x011036b0 size=16 0x00000000...

...ine::create()? I would like to be able to disable the automatic enumeration of loaded modules, and the subsequent searching for undefined symbols (using SearchForAddressOfSymbol). I propose adding an extra parameter to the function definition, defaulting to true. static ExecutionEngine *create(ModuleProvider *MP, bool ForceInterpreter = false, std::string *ErrorStr = 0, bool Fast = false, bool EnumModules = true); And corresponding change to the function. ExecutionEngi...

I noticed that the ocaml compilation isn't using the .opt executables if they're available. We might gain a slight optimization in ocaml compile time by optionally using them with this patch. --- autoconf/configure.ac | 18 +++++ configure | 195 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 2 files changed, 188 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) -------------- next part

...t; */ > typedef struct LLVMOpaqueTypeHandle *LLVMTypeHandleRef; > > @@ -70,12 +70,12 @@ typedef struct LLVMOpaqueBasicBlock > *LLVMBasicBlockRef; > typedef struct LLVMOpaqueBuilder *LLVMBuilderRef; > > /* Used to provide a module to JIT or interpreter. > - * See the llvm::ModuleProvider class. > + * See the [llvm::ModuleProvider] class. > */ > typedef struct LLVMOpaqueModuleProvider *LLVMModuleProviderRef; > > /* Used to provide a module to JIT or interpreter. > - * See the llvm::MemoryBuffer class. > + * See the [llvm::MemoryBuffer] class. > */ > ty...

--- bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml | 2 +- bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.mli | 2 +- bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm_ocaml.c | 2 +- include/llvm-c/Core.h | 32 +++++++++++++++++++------------- 4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 316a84e85ed2363551149e65a227c8e7c8192624.diff Type:

...t<Function>(M->getOrInsertFunction("F", > Type::Int32Ty, (Type*)0)); > BasicBlock *BB = new BasicBlock("BB",F); > new ReturnInst( ConstantInt::get(Type::Int32Ty,1), BB ); > std::vector<GenericValue> Args(0); > ExistingModuleProvider *MP = new ExistingModuleProvider(M); > ExecutionEngine *EE = ExecutionEngine::create(MP, false); > GenericValue GV = EE->runFunction(F, Args); > delete EE; > } > } > > The memory goes up, and OS X leaks command returns pages of: > > Leak:...

...load successive pages and watch top, my RSS size increases by roughly 40 times the on disk size of the loaded bit code for each loaded module, which I take to mean I have a massive leak. I'm probably just not freeing stuff that I ought to but I don't know what - deleting the MemoryBuffer or ModuleProvider results in a SEGV. I've read the doxygen docs but I'm not clear what objects have allocated what memory for what purpose, what can be freed once all functions in a module have been compiled or how to do this. I'd be grateful if anyone could tell me what I'm doing wrong or point m...

On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > >>>> >>>> - A null pointer is associated with no addresses. >>>> >>> >>> A null pointer in address space 0. >> >> I'm not fond of weird address-space semantics, but for consistency >> with what the optimizer is

...> (using SearchForAddressOfSymbol). > > I propose adding an extra parameter to the function definition, > defaulting to true. I'd rather not. The current API is messy enough already. Is there not another way to solve the problem? Evan > > static ExecutionEngine *create(ModuleProvider *MP, > bool ForceInterpreter = false, > std::string *ErrorStr = 0, > bool Fast = false, > bool EnumModules = true); > > And corresponding change to the...

...e the globals with the > functions. > That was it! The following small test program crashes in getPointerToGlobal: #include "llvm/Module.h" #include "llvm/Function.h" #include "llvm/InlineAsm.h" #include "llvm/Support/IRBuilder.h" #include "llvm/ModuleProvider.h" #include "llvm/ExecutionEngine/ExecutionEngine.h" #include "llvm/Support/raw_os_ostream.h" #include "llvm/Bitcode/ReaderWriter.h" #include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h" #include "llvm/Target/TargetSelect.h" #include "llvm/ExecutionEngi...

Hi all, I'd like to announce the availability of Python bindings for LLVM. It is built over llvm-c, and currently exposes enough APIs to build an in-memory IR (and dump it!). It needs LLVM 2.3 latest and Python 2.5 (2.4 should be sufficient, but I haven't tested). Tested only on Linux/i386. Would love to hear your comments. [Needless to say, it's all work in progress, but mostly it