search for: removeobjectset

...nk I understand what goes wrong. Here is my hypothesis: JIT allocates and maps some memory for the execution. Some function X at address 0xdeadbeef is part of this memory. JIT calls a code that passes the X to atexit. JIT deallocates and unmaps the memory used for execution (either via objectLayer.removeObjectSet or by calling JIT's destructors) atexit (cxa_finalize_ranges) calls the X at 0xdeadbeef which does not belong to 'us' anymore, which leads to the crash. Given that my assumption is correct what can we do about this? Is there anything that can be done to cover this case inside of the Or...

...x Denisov via llvm-dev wrote: >> JIT allocates and maps some memory for the execution. Some function X at address 0xdeadbeef is part of this memory. >> JIT calls a code that passes the X to atexit. >> JIT deallocates and unmaps the memory used for execution (either via objectLayer.removeObjectSet or by calling JIT's destructors) >> atexit (cxa_finalize_ranges) calls the X at 0xdeadbeef which does not belong to 'us' anymore, which leads to the crash. > > Sounds plausible. > >> Given that my assumption is correct what can we do about this? Is there >>...

...t; JIT allocates and maps some memory for the execution. Some > function X at address 0xdeadbeef is part of this memory. > >> JIT calls a code that passes the X to atexit. > >> JIT deallocates and unmaps the memory used for execution > (either via objectLayer.removeObjectSet or by calling JIT's > destructors) > >> atexit (cxa_finalize_ranges) calls the X at 0xdeadbeef which > does not belong to 'us' anymore, which leads to the crash. > > > > Sounds plausible. > > > >> Given that my assump...

...and maps some memory for the execution. Some >> function X at address 0xdeadbeef is part of this memory. >> >> JIT calls a code that passes the X to atexit. >> >> JIT deallocates and unmaps the memory used for execution >> (either via objectLayer.removeObjectSet or by calling JIT's >> destructors) >> >> atexit (cxa_finalize_ranges) calls the X at 0xdeadbeef which >> does not belong to 'us' anymore, which leads to the crash. >> > >> > Sounds plausible. >> > >> &...

Agreed, that sounds like the best plan. I'll look into moving LLILC to ORC. Thanks -Joseph From: Russell Hadley Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 8:13 PM To: Lang Hames; Joseph Tremoulet Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] MCJit interface question Hey Joseph, What Lang said made me wonder. Is it the right time for us (LLILC) to move to ORC? The long term plan was to go there but