similar to: SectionMemoryManager::finalizeMemory ... read only data become executable?

On Saturday, 15 July 2017 05:46:35 CEST 陳韋任 wrote: > SectionMemoryManager allocates executable memory section for MCJIT > (JIT emit code then execute). > So the bottomline is making the section sys::Memory::MF_EXEC. As for > RODataMem, we also need > to make sure it's read-only. You can compare it to RWDataMem, which > has write permission. That makes sense. My question is

So I finally took the plunge and switched to MCJIT (wasn't too bad, as long as you remember to call InitializeNativeTargetDisassembler if you want disassembly...), and I got the functionality to a point I was happy with so I wanted to test perf of the system. I created a simple benchmark and I'd thought I'd share the results, both because I know I personally had no idea what the

The pass manager is re-created in emitObject on every call. Andy, is that needed or can we create the PM in MCJIT constructor and keep it around? Yaron 2013/11/19 Kevin Modzelewski <kmod at dropbox.com> > So I finally took the plunge and switched to MCJIT (wasn't too bad, as > long as you remember to call InitializeNativeTargetDisassembler if you want > disassembly...),

I have a few questions about the new ORC JIT. I saw Lang Hames (hi!) excellent talk at the llvm-dev meeting a few weeks ago. The ORC JIT is undergoing some API changes and I'd like/need to take advantage of them. (1) How do I take ownership of the ObjectFile once the ORC JIT has created it? I'd like to take ownership of object files generated by the ORC JIT so that I can save them to

Hi Christian Your use case seems to have similar requirements as remote JITing in ORC. So far I haven't used that part myself and I am sure Lang can tell you much more about it. However, this comment on the RemoteObjectClientLayer class sounds promising for your questions (1) and (2): /// Sending relocatable objects to the server (rather than fully relocated /// bits) allows JIT'd code

Hi Bjoern, CCing cfg-dev (since that's where the conversation started) and llvm-dev (since it's relevant there). Do you know if there is a way to obtain the fully resolved obj-code? I > wanted to load the functions into a shared memory, but how? The only thing > I receive is a function pointer, but I don't know how large the function > 'behind' is. Even a call to

I got the following error while compiling llvm and clang under cygwin. /cygdrive/c/Users/brianherman/Desktop/llvm/llvm-3.3.src/Release+Asserts/lib/libLLVMMCJIT.a(SectionMemoryManager.o):SectionMemoryManager.cpp:(.text+0x3b): undefined reference to `__register_frame'

Hi Brian, On 29/07/13 23:42, Brian Herman wrote: > I got the following error while compiling llvm and clang under cygwin. > > /cygdrive/c/Users/brianherman/Desktop/llvm/llvm-3.3.src/Release+Asserts/lib/libLLVMMCJIT.a(SectionMemoryManager.o):SectionMemoryManager.cpp:(.text+0x3b): > undefined reference to `__register_frame' I register_frame is used to enable the debugger (gdb) to

Hi David, Following up on the problems we discussed yesterday on IRC regarding TLS with MCJIT, I've put together the attached experimental patch. This patch makes three changes: 1. SectionMemoryManager is changed to request memory below the 2GB boundary by default. 2. sys::Memory::allocateMappedMemory is changed to set the MAP_32BIT flag if the requested "near" block

I'll try to find out, or get someone to explain, why Mesa selects MCJIT with LLVM 3.1 only and JIT for other LLVM versions. I'm not keen to code a fourth attempt (1: copy JIT code, 2: delegating manger, 3: derive from DefaultJITMemoryManager, 4: copy MCJIT code) but I'll try copying code with MCJIT. Is that the usual route for people who want to delete all LLVM engines, etc. while

Thanks! Currently using MCJIT. But migration to ORC is on my TODO list. - Paweł On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:30 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > Option (1) and (3) are very similar, but using custom resolution (option > 3) guarantees that JIT'd code can't accidentally end up depending on > functions in your JIT that you didn't mean to

Can you try it without the MAP_32BIT part? It won't be as reliable, but if the memory addresses it is asking for are available it could work. I agree that there are good reasons not to lock in on a single memory address, but I'm curious as to what other obstacles might be lurking behind the ones we know about. If the patch works when memory is loaded below 2GB then it would be possible

OS is Windows 7 64 bit OS, compiler is 32 bit Visual C++ 2012 with 32 bit. The target which is i686-pc-mingw32-elf so I can use the ELF dynamic loader. Code model, relocation model and and memory manager are whatever default for this - did not modify. The Module comes from clang. The source is 1000 or more lines repeating C++ code in one big function: A+1; A*B.t(); where A and B are

Hi, Can you please clarify? We're looking for a way to use LLVM to JIT many modules, assuming that the full list of modules and their content are not available at a time when some of jitted pieces are already in use. Is it feasible to destruct ExecutionEngine but keep jitted code alive? Are jitted binary codes position independent? (or is there a way to relocate) If the solution requires

Hi, Unfortunately, I can't compile this patch. MAP_32BIT is a Linuxism that doesn't work on FreeBSD (or OS X, or, as far as I can tell, anywhere except Linux). We can consider adding something similar to FreeBSD (although I'm hesitant to encourage anything that increases the determinism of the memory layout of JITed code, for security reasons), but it doesn't seem ideal.

Hi, Thanks for your ideas. Memory allocation already exceeds 2x64K in the "working" case so it's not the condition of allocating more than 64K. To be sure I had modified SectionMemoryManager::allocateSection to allocate four time the required memory but it did not trigger more crashes.I debugged through the allocation code including the Win32 code and it seems to work well. I have

I would guess that it's crashing somewhere in the generated code. On Windows we don't have a way to get call stacks to the generated code (though if you want to try it on Linux, that should work). You can probably look at the address where the crash is occurring and verify that it is in the generated code. There are a couple of things I would look for. First, I'd take a look at the

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Mikhail Lyapunov > Subject: [LLVMdev] Multiple modules JITting > We're looking for a way to use LLVM to JIT many modules, assuming that > the full list of modules and their content are not available at a time > when some of jitted pieces are already in use. We do this in our

Hi all, hi Lang It's a little late to report issues for release_50, but I just found that thing while porting my JitFromScratch examples to 5.0. This is a really nifty detail, but (if I'm not mistaken) the function signature of RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer::NotifyLoadedFtor is incorrect: $ grep -h -r -A 1 "using NotifyLoadedFtor"

Without the MSP_32BIT part, I consistently hit this assertion: Assertion failed: ((Type == ELF::R_X86_64_32 && (Value <= UINT32_MAX)) || (Type == ELF::R_X86_64_32S && ((int64_t)Value <= INT32_MAX && (int64_t)Value >= INT32_MIN))), function resolveX86_64Relocation, file ../lib/ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/RuntimeDyldELF.cpp, line 222. David On 9 May 2013, at