similar to: [LLVMdev] Control Flow and Locks when JITing Functions

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Evan Jones wrote: > I just located a concurrency error in my LLVM patch to add locks to the > JIT. I did not add any locks to the JITResolver class in JITEmitter.cpp, > which clearly is a problem since This particular issue causes an > assertion failure on occasion when running a task that spawns threads on > a parallel machine. Any recommendations about if I am

On Apr 21, 2005, at 12:12, Chris Lattner wrote: > Ok. Thanks, for forgot about that patch :( No problem, since I still don't know how to integrate it cleanly into the build system. Platform dependencies are very annoying. > I think it would be more straight-forward to have a single lock that > the jit resolver can aquire. Makes sense to me at least This is actually what I ended

The patch I recently attached to bug 2606, reproduced here, is my first attempt to solve this issue as represented by the attached test cases. To solve the foreign Module GlobalVariable problem, I modified JIT::getOrEmitGlobalVariable(...) to directly attempt to map a found "external" GlobalVariable. To solve the foreign Module Function problem, I modified both JIT.{h,cpp} and

Hi, Today I've been trying to debug a weird bug that makes JIT crash with certain code and when using the inliner. This may sound weird, but if I disable the inliner, it doesn't crash. I include an example gdb dump below. Does something looks wrong? Do you think it's a bug in JIT or it's just some other piece of code that is writing on the JIT memory?.. I don't really know

Hi Jeffrey, Thanks for pointing me in the right direction ! I'm not using the JIT in lazy mode, but it was fun to understand the lazy-stub code. Attached you will find a patch which follow your 1st option : a map Stub_address -> JITResolver instance, except that the used map is a "std::map" to apply the same upper_bound trick as in the map CallSiteToFunctionMap of the

In eager compilation mode, I don't know of anything that would go wrong with having multiple JITs in the process. However, in lazy compilation mode, we need to map stub addresses to the JIT that knows how to compile them. Right now, that's done by looking up the static "TheJITResolver" variable and assuming it's the only JIT, but we could 1) use a static

Thanks for the patch! I'll clean this up, convert your sample to a unit test, and commit it for 2.7. On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Olivier Meurant <meurant.olivier at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jeffrey, > > Thanks for pointing me in the right direction ! > I'm not using the JIT in lazy mode, but it was fun to understand the > lazy-stub code. > > Attached you will

Thanks Jeffrey ! If possible, keep me inform (on revision number), I'm interested to see how you will do the unit test. (For my future patch... :) ). Thanks again. Olivier. On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com>wrote: > Thanks for the patch! I'll clean this up, convert your sample to a > unit test, and commit it for 2.7. > > On Sun,

Hi Olivier, On Feb 25, 2010, at 14:10, Olivier Meurant wrote: > Hi Garrison, > > I finally come back from holidays and take time to watch your patch. > > I must say that I largely prefer this version over the previous one ! I like the reuse of getLazyFunctionStub, but I don't know if the forceEmitFunctionStub is still needed ? JIT::forceEmitFunctionStub(...) was created to

Hi Garrison, I am not a specialist of the code but here is my 2 cents: - I like the idea that in lazy-mode the call (in module or not) is treated by a stub (like every calls). - If the jit is in non-lazy mode, I'm not really fan of the "stub" solution. Is it not possible to use the same mechanism as it already exists : add the function to pending list and emit it after the current

Hi everyone ! If I call ExecutionEngine::createJIT (or EngineBuilder::create) more than one time, the second time fails on a assertion "Multiple JIT resolvers?". It seems that the JIT is designed to be a singleton in the process, and I was wondering if it was something mandatory. How hard will it be to make it a non-singleton object ? Is this a JIT-only problem (work needed on JIT

I just got the CVS version of LLVM running tonight. On my PowerBook, one of the examples (HowToUseJIT) has an assertion error when I try and run it: Running foo: JIT.cpp:217: failed assertion `!isAlreadyCodeGenerating && "Error: Recursive compilation detected!"' However, when I compile and run the same program on x86 Linux, it runs fine (Running foo: Result: 11). I

[sidenote: Please try to avoid extraneous whitespace and line wrapping changes in your patches. It makes it harder to see what you're actually changing] On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Olivier, > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 14:10, Olivier Meurant wrote: > > Hi Garrison, > > I finally come back from holidays and take

Hi Jeffrey, On Feb 26, 2010, at 16:02, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > [sidenote: Please try to avoid extraneous whitespace and line wrapping changes in your patches. It makes it harder to see what you're actually changing] Sorry just saw some preexisting code was not in 80 columns. > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi

Hi, > Today I've been trying to debug a weird bug that makes JIT crash with > certain code and when using the inliner. This may sound weird, but if I > disable the inliner, it doesn't crash. > I include an example gdb dump below. Does something looks wrong? Do you > think it's a bug in JIT or it's just some other piece of code that is > writing on the JIT

Looks sane. Thanks. Evan On Feb 1, 2008, at 1:24 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Dear all, > > Here's a new patch with Evan's comments (thx Evan!) and some cleanups. > Now the (duplicated) exception handling code is in a new file: > lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JITDwarfEmitter. > > This patch should work on linux/x86 and linux/ppc (tested). > > Nicolas > Index:

Hi Garrison, I finally come back from holidays and take time to watch your patch. I must say that I largely prefer this version over the previous one ! I like the reuse of getLazyFunctionStub, but I don't know if the forceEmitFunctionStub is still needed ? I thought about JIT and modules, and I wonder if we don't need to take it another way. Now we can create multiples JIT. What if we

This is the second version of a patch, which I recently attached to bug 2606, whose original version was modified to reflect the lists comments. Also please note the comment at the end of this email, which basically questions whether this bug is really a bug. 1) To solve the foreign Module GlobalVariable problem, I modified JIT::getOrEmitGlobalVariable(...) to directly attempt to map a found

On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Here's a patch that enables exception handling when jitting. I've > copy/pasted _many_code from lib/Codegen/DwarfWriter.cpp, so we may > need > to factorize it, but the functionality is there and I'm very happy > with > it :) Very nice! I don't know enough about EH, someone else

Hi, This is probably an easy question, but I could not find the answer to it. I'm working on a LLVM back-end for the EHC compiler (a Haskell compiler). Currently there is a C back-end and I would like to reuse the primitive library functions from this back-end. So I have compiled C sources in a .o file and I would like to call these from my LLVM code. If I declare these primitive functions