Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "tp63089p63115".
2013 Nov 11
2
[LLVMdev] loop vectorizer: JIT + AVX segfaults
...hat it's worth, I'm also experiencing this same issue. If there is
interest I can provide some very simple reproducible test cases, but I was
planning on moving to MCJIT this week anyway.
--
View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/loop-vectorizer-JIT-AVX-segfaults-tp63089p63115.html
Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
2013 Nov 11
0
[LLVMdev] loop vectorizer: JIT + AVX segfaults
...experiencing this same issue. If there is
> interest I can provide some very simple reproducible test cases, but I was
> planning on moving to MCJIT this week anyway.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/loop-vectorizer-JIT-AVX-segfaults-tp63089p63115.html
> Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-------------- next part...
2013 Nov 11
0
[LLVMdev] loop vectorizer: JIT + AVX segfaults
On 11 November 2013 01:36, Frank Winter <fwinter at jlab.org> wrote:
> There is no particular reason why I am working with the legacy
> interface. Would you recommend to use the MCJIT interface in general?
>
Absolutely!
Bugs found in MCJIT are far more likely to get fixed. The aim is to
deprecate the old JIT as soon as possible, so solving problems in it don't
get priority.
2013 Nov 11
2
[LLVMdev] loop vectorizer: JIT + AVX segfaults
It's not much.
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00007ffff7f6506b in ?? ()
#1 0x000000000045d01a in main () at main.cc:165
Line 165 is the call to the function that was compiled by the JIT'er.
Meaning that JIT'ing the function went well, but the code or the pointer
are somehow corrupt.
There is no particular reason why I am working with the legacy
interface. Would you recommend to use the MCJIT