similar to: llvm 5.0 release rc1 : ExecutionEngine fatal error on MCJIT::getFunctionAddress

I needed to be able to update stub pointers for hot functions that get recompiled in a lazy JIT that uses CompileOnDemandLayer. In order to do this I added a method that allows pointers to be updated but does not expose any of the other internals of the COD layer. Does anyone have a cleaner way to do this? Has something to facilitate this already been added? Would it be possible to merge this

+Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com>, Master Regent of the Three <No, Two sir> JITs On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:31 PM Sean Ogden via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I needed to be able to update stub pointers for hot functions that get > recompiled in a lazy JIT that uses CompileOnDemandLayer. In order to do > this I added a method that allows pointers to

Hi Sean, This is great, but it couples LogicalDylib too tightly to CompileOnDemandLayer. Does this alternative implementation of getLogicalModuleResourcesForSymbol work for you (unfortunately I don't have a local test case for this yet): LogicalModuleResources* getLogicalModuleResourcesForSymbol(const std::string &Name, bool

It does work. I just tested it on my JIT. Thanks! As for the part that couples them too tightly, would you recommend I just keep my own specialized version of CompileOnDemandLayer.h that includes this functionality, or do you have any ideas for a cleaner way to do this? I've noticed a couple of people asking for support for updating stub pointers for functions that are optimized at runtime,

Hi Sean, As for the part that couples them too tightly, would you recommend I just > keep my own specialized version of CompileOnDemandLayer.h that includes > this functionality, or do you have any ideas for a cleaner way to do this? My apologies - I wasn't very clear in my description of the issue. The only sense in which your original patch was tightly coupled was that it had

I tree to compile the LLVM ORC JIT examples. But I'm stuck in some problems I can't solve my own. First at all I compile with C++14 enabled with latest stable LLVM and clang, this means 4.0.1. I get the following error. Do I missed some specific compile option? Compilation looks like this here. |CompilingcontribJIT.cpp PWD:/home/ikuehl/projects-llvm/TurboLisp/domainEngineer

Firstly, apologies if this is not the right place to be asking this question--feel free to point me in the correct direction. I could be doing something wrong here but stackoverflow didn't feel like the correct place for this since there's so little there about LLVM ORC. Basically, I have a reproduction case (below) where if I throw an exception before I call JITSymbol::getAddress()

Hi David, This looks like bad eh-frame data due to a failure to fix up the frame descriptor entries: <debug: adding frame> EHFrameAddr: 0x7feae5827000, EHFrameLoadAddr: 0x00000000e5827000, EHFrameSize: 60 ==64588==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: SEGV on unknown address 0x7feae5827020 (pc 0x7feae886d970 bp 0x000000000001 sp 0x7ffca10e75f8 T0) Eyeballing the code in RuntimeDyldELF (vs

Hi, I think ExecutionEngine as a common interface for both Interpreter and MCJIT is almost useless in the current form. There are separated methods in ExecutionEngine for similar or the same features provided by Interpreter and MCJIT, i.e. to get a pointer to function you should call getPointerToFunction() for Interpreter or getFunctionAddress() for MCJIT. Personally, I'm using MCJIT and

Hi David, Thanks very much for that. I'll continue to dig in as time permits, and I'll update the bug report with my progress once it's filed. Cheers, Lang. On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:42 PM, David Lurton <dlurton at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Lang. I think I'll go the bug creation route. I have an email out > to llvm-admin requesting an account on bugs.llvm.org.

Hi David, Sorry to hear. Has anyone followed up with you yet? I've continued to dig in to this in my spare time and I've found the issue. It's a use-after-free, rather than any sort of memory smashing. ORC is currently failing to deregister the EH-frame section when the JIT is torn down (but *is* deallocating the memory for it). Normally that's not disastrous (though it does

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

Hi all, I'm trying to play with patchoint (with MCJIT and VMKit) and I don't understand something. I generate this call for my first patch point. Basically, I want to call f(0). %5 = call i64 (i64, i32, i8*, i32, ...)* @llvm.experimental.patchpoint.i64( i64 42, ;; patch point id is 42 i32 0, ;; 0 bytes for the padding i8* bitcast (i32 (i32)* @f to i8*), ;; my function f i32 1,

patchpoint is intended to be used in VMs that do their own linking, and so you wouldn't expect the function parameter to be resolved by LLVM. Presumably, in VMKit, you could just plant a pointer constant to the function you wish to call initially? -Filip On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Gaël Thomas <gael.thomas00 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm trying to play with

> > > > We may need some additional info. What kind of additional info? > I haven't put a ton of thought into > this, but I'm hoping we can either (a) use debug info as is or add some > extra (valid) debug info to support this, or (b) add an extra > debug-info-like section to instrumented binaries with the information we > need. > I'd try this data

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Having proper error handling in LLVM's Object parsing library is a nice > thing by itself, but it would additionally allow us to find bugs by fuzzing > (see r238451 that adds llvm-dwarfdump-fuzzer tool), for which the clean > input validation is essential. > > This

On 29 May 2015 at 19:06, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Having proper error handling in LLVM's Object parsing library is a nice > thing by itself, but it would additionally allow us to find bugs by fuzzing > (see r238451 that adds llvm-dwarfdump-fuzzer tool), for which the clean > input validation is essential. > > This is a

Hi everyone, Having proper error handling in LLVM's Object parsing library is a nice thing by itself, but it would additionally allow us to find bugs by fuzzing (see r238451 that adds llvm-dwarfdump-fuzzer tool), for which the clean input validation is essential. This is a generic discussion of state of affairs. I want to do some progress in fuzzing before we finish it (especially if we

Ok I see. Of course, at runtime, it's enough for dynamic linking or for deoptimization. However, wmkit acts both as a jit and as an aot. For the aot, it means that I can not use patchpoint and that I should have two different compilation strategy. It's not so difficult, but in this case, I can not use patchpoints to generate gc's stackmap for the aot (basically, I think that I could

With comdats parts of the file might never be read. There are also multiple levels of cache and while all the relocations of a file will fit in ram, it is probably still more efficient to validate them as they are read. But I think (typing on a phone) that relocations are another case where the best is to have a more specific api: the only way the relocation is invalid from the perspective of