Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "r83242".
Did you mean:
583242
2009 Oct 30
2
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
...functions that'll need to take this option.
The documentation should also be updated
(http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#threading) to reflect what
one needs to do,
to ensure thread-safe JITing.
Also does every JIT target support non-lazy JITing now? See PR4816,
last time I checked (r83242) it only worked on X86, and failed on PPC;
so I had to keep lazy JITing enabled even if its not what I want for
many reasons.
Also perhaps the lazy compilation stub should spin waiting on a lock
(implemented using atomics), and the compilation callback should
execute while holding the lock just be...
2009 Nov 01
1
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
...gt; Thanks for that reminder. I've updated it in the patch I'm about to
> mail, but I should apply the update regardless of whether the rest of
> the patch goes in.
>
>
>> Also does every JIT target support non-lazy JITing now? See PR4816,
>> last time I checked (r83242) it only worked on X86, and failed on PPC;
>> so I had to keep lazy JITing enabled even if its not what I want for
>> many reasons.
>>
>
> It's still the case that only X86 supports eager jitting. It doesn't
> look that hard to add it to the rest of the targe...
2009 Nov 01
0
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
...t; to ensure thread-safe JITing.
Thanks for that reminder. I've updated it in the patch I'm about to
mail, but I should apply the update regardless of whether the rest of
the patch goes in.
> Also does every JIT target support non-lazy JITing now? See PR4816,
> last time I checked (r83242) it only worked on X86, and failed on PPC;
> so I had to keep lazy JITing enabled even if its not what I want for
> many reasons.
It's still the case that only X86 supports eager jitting. It doesn't
look that hard to add it to the rest of the targets though.
> Also perhaps the la...
2009 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Nicolas Geoffray
<nicolas.geoffray at lip6.fr> wrote:
> Hi Jeffrey,
>
> Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>>
>> Cool, I'll start implementing it.
>>
>
> Great! Thanks.
>
> Just to clarify things: on my end, it doesn't really matter what is the
> default behavior, as long as vmkit can continue to have the existing
>
2009 Oct 29
3
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
Hi Jeffrey,
Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> Cool, I'll start implementing it.
>
Great! Thanks.
Just to clarify things: on my end, it doesn't really matter what is the
default behavior, as long as vmkit can continue to have the existing
behavior of lazy compilation. With Chris' solution, I was wondering how
you would implement the getPointerToFunction{Eager, Lazy} functions when