similar to: [LLVMdev] Newbie question: Getting info about JIT-compiled function

Andrew Haley wrote: > Jeff Kuskin wrote: > > Apologies if this is a FAQ. > > > > I am using the LLVM JIT facility on an x86_64 platform. I generate > > IR for a single function using IRBuilder(), use the > > FunctionPassManager to do some optimization passes, and then call > > ExecutionEngine::getPointerToFunction() to get a native-code version > > of

Hi Jeffrey, This looks very good. Thanks. Some comments: +/// JitSymbolEntry - Each function that is JIT compiled results in one of these +/// being added to an array of symbols. This indicates the name of the function +/// as well as the address range it occupies. This allows the client to map +/// from a PC value to the name of the function. +struct JitSymbolEntry { A nitpick. Please

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Evan Cheng<evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Jeffrey, > > This looks very good. Thanks. Some comments: > > +/// JitSymbolEntry - Each function that is JIT compiled results in > one of these > +/// being added to an array of symbols.  This indicates the name of > the function > +/// as well as the address range it occupies.  This

Hi all when i compiled llvm-3.0 with icedtea1.11.4 together,A memory_barrier error happened ,And now I write to all of you for the following questions need your help and suggestion : 1, Is any function which can replace the "make_function" in the following function, 2 , Or is there any different paramters in make_function with the similar action with the following one

Ack, sorry. I should have sent this to llvm-commits instead. :-P Followups there please. On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin<jyasskin at google.com> wrote: > I intend to use this to support oprofile's ability to symbolize JITted > code through the interface described at > http://oprofile.sourceforge.net/doc/devel/jit-interface.html. I > believe the interface

I intend to use this to support oprofile's ability to symbolize JITted code through the interface described at http://oprofile.sourceforge.net/doc/devel/jit-interface.html. I believe the interface will also be useful for gdb support. I'm considering adding some flags to the JITEventListener to let the JIT avoid collecting information no listener is going to use, but I won't do that

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Gary Benson wrote: > > When you genetate code on PowerPC you need to explicitly > > invalidate the instruction cache to force the processor to reread > > it. In LLVM there is code to do this for function stubs on > > Macintosh, but not for other platforms and not for JITted code > > generally. > > Applied, thanks!

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Gary Benson wrote: > When you genetate code on PowerPC you need to explicitly invalidate > the instruction cache to force the processor to reread it. In LLVM > there is code to do this for function stubs on Macintosh, but not > for other platforms and not for JITted code generally. Applied, thanks!

Hi all, When you genetate code on PowerPC you need to explicitly invalidate the instruction cache to force the processor to reread it. In LLVM there is code to do this for function stubs on Macintosh, but not for other platforms and not for JITted code generally. The attached patch adds support for GNU platforms, but I can't figure out a nice way to call it for all generated code. Can

Two related questions. This is with LLVM 2.4 doing a JIT compile to x86-64. (I generate LLVM IR using an IRBuilder instance, compile/optimize, and then call getPointerToFunction() to get a "native" function pointer.) (1) My reading of various mailing list messages seems to indicate that a function marked as using the "fastcc" calling convention

Jeff Kuskin wrote: > Correct? If not, how do I call a LLVM JIT-generated fastcc function > from a function statically compiled by GCC? Well, you can always generate a little wrapper function with C calling convention which just calls the fastcc function. -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany Email: Dr.Graef at t-online.de, ag at

On Feb 12, 2009, at 3:23 PM, Albert Graef wrote: > Jeff Kuskin wrote: >> Correct? If not, how do I call a LLVM JIT-generated fastcc function >> from a function statically compiled by GCC? > > Well, you can always generate a little wrapper function with C calling > convention which just calls the fastcc function. You can do a quick bit of assembly code to make sure that

Is anyone else receiving multiple (typically 2 or 3) copies of each mailing list message? -- Jeff

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Jeff Kuskin <jk500500 at yahoo.com> wrote: > Two related questions. > (2) Why does the x86-64 JIT backend generate a "ret $0x8" instruction > to return from a fastcc function that is (a) marked as fastcc > (CallingConv::Fast); but (b) takes no arguments and returns 'void'? fastcc generated code ends with this: > c20800

I am implementing a new backend and am pretty sure I don't quite understand "the way" one is supposed to implement conditional branches. My target CPU natively supports a conditional branch instruction that accepts a condition to test (equal, less than, etc.), two operands (two registers, or one register and one immediate), and finally a target PC to branch to if the comparison

Albert Graef wrote: > Jeff Kuskin wrote: >> Correct? If not, how do I call a LLVM JIT-generated fastcc function >> from a function statically compiled by GCC? > > Well, you can always generate a little wrapper function with C calling > convention which just calls the fastcc function. > I use the fastcall convention all the time. LLVM-jitted code calling GCC-compile

Debug build on x86_64 with`--with-udis86=<path>' option to 'configure' seems broken. Configure command line: ./configure --disable-optimized --enable-assertions --enable-debug-runtime --enable-debug-symbols --enable-jit --enable-pic --enable-targets=x86_64 --with-udis86=/somepath/udis86/udis86-1.7 At least 2 issues: (1) '-L/somepath/udis86/udis86-1.7' is added to the

I'm adding the gdb list because it appears there's currently no way to tell gdb about newly-JITted code. That is, it's not an LLVM-specific problem. There appear to be two techniques in common use to debug dynamically-generated code despite this. First, as Evan suggests below, we can have the JIT print the address range that it's written a function into, have gdb disassemble that,