search for: praveenvelliengiri

Yes, I confirm. Le ven. 20 déc. 2019 à 19:12, Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> a écrit : > Hi, > Orc v2 is different from the internal structure then Orc v1 not just in > API level. > TLS support is not in ORC for a long time at least I'm aware of , Could > you please confirm that ORC v1 actually compiles and run the code with > Thread...

...ith individual “scripts” taking significantly less than 1 second > > each. There must be some difference between LLVM 9.0 and LLVM 7.0 that > > might cause this (?) > > > > John > > > > > >> On 30 Jun 2019, at 11:17, Praveen Velliengiri > >> <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com <mailto:praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com>> > >> wrote: > >> > >> * > >> * > >> cmake *BUILD_SHARED_LIBS* option, it builds llvm as .so not as .a. It > >> will use less memory during linking so you can increase the link >...

...ith individual “scripts” taking significantly less than 1 second > > each. There must be some difference between LLVM 9.0 and LLVM 7.0 that > > might cause this (?) > > > > John > > > > > >> On 30 Jun 2019, at 11:17, Praveen Velliengiri > >> <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com <mailto:praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com>> > >> wrote: > >> > >> * > >> * > >> cmake *BUILD_SHARED_LIBS* option, it builds llvm as .so not as .a. It > >> will use less memory during linking so you can increase the link >...

...0. However, on LLVM 7.0.1, the same process takes just 5-6 seconds in total, with individual “scripts” taking significantly less than 1 second each. There must be some difference between LLVM 9.0 and LLVM 7.0 that might cause this (?) John > On 30 Jun 2019, at 11:17, Praveen Velliengiri <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > > > cmake BUILD_SHARED_LIBS option, it builds llvm as .so not as .a. It will use less memory during linking so you can increase the link threads and your build time will be lesser. > Check this in : https://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html <https://llvm.org/docs/...

...>> > each. There must be some difference between LLVM 9.0 and LLVM 7.0 that >>> > might cause this (?) >>> > >>> > John >>> > >>> > >>> >> On 30 Jun 2019, at 11:17, Praveen Velliengiri >>> >> <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com <mailto:praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com>> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> * >>> >> * >>> >> cmake *BUILD_SHARED_LIBS* option, it builds llvm as .so not as .a. It >>> >> will use less memory...

And yet the same C++ code using thread-local variables works fine (or seems to) when compiled with Orc v1. Does the change to the Orc API really make thread-local storage more difficult? On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 3:52 PM Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I think Linux don't have support for TLS. > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:19, Geoff Levner <glevner at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Argh. Thanks for the info. We're on Linux. >> >> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 3:46 PM Praveen Velliengiri...

...that >> > might cause this (?) >> > >> > John >> > >> > >> >> On 30 Jun 2019, at 11:17, Praveen Velliengiri >> >> <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com >> <mailto:praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> >> <mailto:praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com >> <mailto:praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com>>> >> >> wrote: >>...

...> might cause this (?) >>> > >>> > John >>> > >>> > >>> >> On 30 Jun 2019, at 11:17, Praveen Velliengiri >>> >> <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com >>> <mailto:praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> >>> <mailto:praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com >>> <mailto:praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com>>> >>> >> wrote: >>&...

You can add symbols from Archieve via StaticLibrarySearchGenerator. But it is added recently though On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 21:02, Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Geoff, > I tried it, but I can't able to reproduce it. > > Test Program: > #include <fstream> > int main() > { > std::ifstream stream1, stream2; > stream1.swap(stream2); > return 0; > } > > I didn't get undefined...

yeah i m concerned about jit compilation time.. On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:57 PM Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes I think so.. Could you please tell me in which context (compile time > improvement)? That is whether you are interested in knowing whether having > ORC instead of MCJIT, will increase your LLVM Build time or you are > concerned about the JIT Compilation ti...

Thanks Praveen. Is it suitable for LLVM 7.0.1 ? Apart from flexibility, do we see any compile time improvements as well with ORC? On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:31 PM Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > MCJIT hopefully will be removed in subsequent releases. I think the last > release version is more suitable. > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 11:45, Ashok Anand via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Which llvm version is more sui...

Argh. Thanks for the info. We're on Linux. On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 3:46 PM Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Geoff, > Gathering from past, I remember that the ORCv2 doesn't support thread > local variable but not sure what is the current status now. What platform > you are on? > CC'ed (Lang hames) he knows exactly what is the status. > > On Fri, 2...

Hi Praveen, Please, can you elaborate on this?. What do do mean by “building as shared objects”. Thanks, John > On 30 Jun 2019, at 07:32, Praveen Velliengiri <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe try building llvm as a shared objects.. > > On Jun 30, 2019 1:30 AM, "Joan Lluch via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > Hi Florian, > > Ok, I ran this: > > cmake...

...ull code list leaves to the old version. On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:51 AM Yafei Liu <yfliu at mobvoi.com> wrote: > Yes, the function type mismatch, just copy the "full code list" and > compile will fail. > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 3:43 AM Praveen Velliengiri < > praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Yafei, >> First 2 chapters of the tutorial is up-to-date with ORC v2 APIs. I hope >> nothing changed in docs and code. >> Did you got compilation errors? >> >> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 00:47, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < >&g...

...d Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Are you already using split DWARF & still having resource constraint > problems? (oh, you could also compress debug info, > -Wa,-compress-debug-sections) > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:00 PM Praveen Velliengiri < > praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Actually, I have same question, If llvm build provides a option similar >> to that, it will be lot more easier for people doing development in >> relatively less (compute, storage) PC's. >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 00:22, D...

Hi Praveen, On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 21:05, Praveen Velliengiri <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > > Could you please send me your unoptimized and expected optimized code? The default implementation only contains some transformations. It would be helpful to know what you are actually trying. > Optimize Module is just a function object. > You can view the co...

...> lookup function to find a symbol in the code. Now I would like to reset the > instance of the Kaleidoscope JIT I had, to jit new modules, which are not > related to the previous modules I jitted. > > Kind greetings > > Björn > > > > *From:* Praveen Velliengiri <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> > *Sent:* Donnerstag, 27. Juni 2019 08:21 > *To:* Gaier, Bjoern <Bjoern.Gaier at horiba.com>; Lang Hames < > lhames at gmail.com> > *Cc:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] Questions about moving from MCJIT to Orc JIT...

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 4:56 PM Praveen Velliengiri <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > > HI > Did you run the static constructor and destructor? How did you make your process symbols visible to ORC jit? Yes. It's the constructor that generates the undefined symbol error. We use DynamicLibrary::LoadLibraryPermanently(nullptr) to add process symb...

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 21:05, Praveen Velliengiri <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > > Optimize Module is just a function object. > Thank you - I fixed that now. Regards

...ften bits of inline assembly that's more similar to the initial-exec model than a dynamic library would normally be able to use)—but also with more limitations on how it may be used and requiring some additional support from the runtime. On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:17 PM Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jameson, > Why thread local support is hard to support in JITs? Whether Julia > supports Thread locals? If so, it would be very much helpful to know how. > > Thanks > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 23:31, Jameson Nash via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at l...