similar to: [LLVMdev] Scheme + LLVM JIT

Hi, Alexander! On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:59:06PM -0400, Alexander Friedman wrote: > I am in the preliminary stages of adding a JIT compiler to a sizable > Scheme system (PLT Scheme). Cool! > The original plan was to use GNU Lightning, but 1) it seems to be > dead, and 2) LLVM has already done a huge amount of stuff that I would > have had to write (poorly) from scratch. Maybe

On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 23:59 -0400, Alexander Friedman wrote: > Hi List, > > I am in the preliminary stages of adding a JIT compiler to a sizable > Scheme system (PLT Scheme). The original plan was to use GNU > Lightning, but 1) it seems to be dead, and 2) LLVM has already done a > huge amount of stuff that I would have had to write (poorly) from > scratch. Yay! A real

On May 5, Misha Brukman wrote: > Maybe we can use you for a testimonial... :) Certainly. > > Tail Call Elimination: > > > > I've read over the "Random llvm notes", and see that you guys have > > though about this already. > > > > However, the note dates from last year, so I am wondering if there is > > an implementation in the works.

On Thu, 5 May 2005, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:46:58AM -0400, Alexander Friedman wrote: >> On May 5, Misha Brukman wrote: >>> To the best of my knowledge, this has not been done and no one has >>> announced their intent to work on it, so if you are interested, >>> you'd be more than welcome to do so. >> >> My C++ knowledge

On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:46:58AM -0400, Alexander Friedman wrote: > On May 5, Misha Brukman wrote: > > To the best of my knowledge, this has not been done and no one has > > announced their intent to work on it, so if you are interested, > > you'd be more than welcome to do so. > > My C++ knowledge is completely non-existant, but so far I've had a >

LLVM list, I bumped into Alex Friedman in the hall today and by coincidence he mentioned that they were switching to LLVM for their PLT Scheme JIT project. I had evaluated LLVM a few weeks ago for my own purposes, but decided that it was too C/C++ centered and that critical features such as tail call optimization and other stack manipulation features were likely stagnant. So naturally I asked

> So as it stands, one should think of out JIT as something akin to the > early Java JITs: one function at a time and only one compile per > function. This is extremely primative by modern JIT standards, where a > JIT will do profiling, find hot functions and reoptimize them, > reoptimize functions when more information about the call tree is > available, have several levels of

On Thu, 5 May 2005, Alexander Friedman wrote: >>> Does there happen to be a C interface to the jit ? Our scheme impl >>> has a good FFI, but it doesn't do C++. If not, this is no big deal, >>> and i'll just write something myself. >> >> No, but such bindings would be *very useful*. And since there might be >> other people who need them this

That's a good point.  But it's worth noting that recompileAndRelinkFunction() and freeMachineCodeForFunction() are both vestiges of the old JIT (i.e. the "JIT" as opposed to the "MCJIT").  The old JIT is no longer actively supported. -Phil On April 26, 2014 at 9:47:05 AM, Sri (emdcdeveloper at gmail.com) wrote: Hi Fillip                  Addition to my previous

Valery, Attached are three files: "valery.cpp" which contains your original, "reid.cpp" which contains corrections to most of the FIXME items and "diffs" which shows the differences between them. The differences should be instructive on what to do. You were really, really close .. just a few details changing. The code in "reid.cpp" compiles but I

On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Dec 19, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Gianluca Guida wrote: >> Attached patch makes runJITOnFunction more reliable. > > When would MCI be null? Everytime you call recompileAndRelinkFunction. It calls runJITOnFunction without specifying the MCI argument, which get defaulted to NULL. Gianluca -- It was a

Reid Spencer, thank you for your quick responce, finally i got to my PC at home. You wrote: > Attached are three files: "valery.cpp" which contains your original, > "reid.cpp" which contains corrections to most of the FIXME items and > "diffs" which shows the differences between them. The differences > should be instructive on what to do. You were

--- On Thu, 1/3/08, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > > On Jan 2, 2008, at 05:57, Kamal R. Prasad wrote: > > > (im new to LLVM , so pl excuse if this is a naive q). > > Welcome! > thanks > > Can someone provide info on what runtime optimizations > are done in > > LLVM? > > You can use any of LLVM's optimizing

Hi Filip Thank you for your detailed explanation, I was actually looking to implement an adaptive approach which is basically when some function executed more frequently, I was trying to drop that function and compiled and linked with new optimized function. I just did the following - whenever some function executed more times , I called-back to program, so I that I

Suppose, I have a Pass1 implemented as a subclass of Pass, with source code in the directory of llvm source base( transform/analyze ) I can run that pass through opt on the bytecode emitted by gcc frontend through opt tool. However, I want that Pass1 to be the part of the actual GCC compiler. I want to know how I can position Pass1 among other passes /optimizations/ code generations. e.g if

Question 1: I am trying to get a function not to be inlined. What are llvm's rules pertaining to inlining? I have tried all of the standard gcc options for turning off inlining and they do not seem to work. Here is the sample code that I am working with: #include <stdio.h> void print_string(char* strval); int main() { char* strval = "Hello world\n"; while(1){

My understanding is that the JIT system allows during the running of the system resolution of call instructions to undefined functions to be trapped and then patched with the correct address (is this true?). The question I have is does the current system also allow for repatching? for a certain OO system I am working on this could be desirable when an object/class is updated and replaced- making

Just updated the source and now I get the unreachable error again. The JIT doesn't know how to handle a RAUW on a value it has emitted. UNREACHABLE executed at /home/conrado/engines/llvm/lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JITEmitter.cpp:1542! I think that it's not helpful now, but I can post the program, if you want me to. On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > I have a very simple XML document type that I use for configuring XPS > systems. There's only four elements and it follows much the same kind of > grouped name/value pairs that Chris is suggesting. Chris' example would > be like: > <configuration name="llvm"> > <group name=".c"> > <item

Albert Graef wrote: > The way I do this in Pure is to always call global functions in an > indirect fashion, using an internal global variable which holds the > current function pointer. When a function definition gets updated, the > Pure interpreter just jits the new function, changes the global variable > accordingly, and frees the old code. > > Compared to Duncan's