search for: x86backend

...; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Manny Ko <Manny.Ko at imgtec.com> wrote: > I know the old JIT pretty well but have only used the MCJIT from the client side. Most of my experience is on the x86backend though. > > Another critical feature missing from MCJIT is the JITEventListener. This is usually for supporting debuggers and profiling tools. What makes you say it is missing? Eli

I know the old JIT pretty well but have only used the MCJIT from the client side. Most of my experience is on the x86backend though. Another critical feature missing from MCJIT is the JITEventListener. This is usually for supporting debuggers and profiling tools. Ciao. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Albert Graef Sent: Monday, Nove...

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Manny Ko <Manny.Ko at imgtec.com> wrote: > I know the old JIT pretty well but have only used the MCJIT from the client side. Most of my experience is on the x86backend though. > > Another critical feature missing from MCJIT is the JITEventListener. This is usually for supporting debuggers and profiling tools. What makes you say it is missing? Eli

...; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Manny Ko <Manny.Ko at imgtec.com> wrote: > I know the old JIT pretty well but have only used the MCJIT from the client side. Most of my experience is on the x86backend though. > > Another critical feature missing from MCJIT is the JITEventListener. This is usually for supporting debuggers and profiling tools. What makes you say it is missing? Eli _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu...

...; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Manny Ko <Manny.Ko at imgtec.com> wrote: > I know the old JIT pretty well but have only used the MCJIT from the client side. Most of my experience is on the x86backend though. > > Another critical feature missing from MCJIT is the JITEventListener. This is usually for supporting debuggers and profiling tools. What makes you say it is missing? Eli _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu...

...; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Manny Ko <Manny.Ko at imgtec.com> wrote: > I know the old JIT pretty well but have only used the MCJIT from the client side. Most of my experience is on the x86backend though. > > Another critical feature missing from MCJIT is the JITEventListener. This is usually for supporting debuggers and profiling tools. What makes you say it is missing? Eli _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu...

...; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Manny Ko <Manny.Ko at imgtec.com> wrote: > I know the old JIT pretty well but have only used the MCJIT from the client side. Most of my experience is on the x86backend though. > > Another critical feature missing from MCJIT is the JITEventListener. This is usually for supporting debuggers and profiling tools. What makes you say it is missing? Eli _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu...

...; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Manny Ko <Manny.Ko at imgtec.com> wrote: > I know the old JIT pretty well but have only used the MCJIT from the client side. Most of my experience is on the x86backend though. > > Another critical feature missing from MCJIT is the JITEventListener. This is usually for supporting debuggers and profiling tools. What makes you say it is missing? Eli _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu...

On 11/25/2012 11:16 AM, Benjamin Kramer wrote: > It's possible to coexist, but increases the maintenance burden. Ok, I understand. > I can understand your concerns and I wouldn't have proposed this change if the old JIT for ARM and PPC actually worked. When running LLVM's regression tests on a ARM or PPC64 host most of the JIT tests simply fail. That's why the regression

On 25.11.2012, at 00:34, Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> wrote: > On 11/24/2012 05:06 PM, Benjamin Kramer wrote: >> I'm proposing to remove the JIT code emitters for the ARM and PPC targets now so it's no longer holding back the development of the MC parts for those backends. > > Why is this holding back MCJIT development? If the old JIT with the x86 >