similar to: [LLVMdev] Test compiler help

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm writing a test compiler to understand the overall structure of > LLVM and I managed to produce IR for expressions, functions and > function calls. > > I'm following the Kaleidoscope example and had a hard time de-tangling > the language specifics from LLVM

On Aug 16, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm writing a test compiler to understand the overall structure of > LLVM and I managed to produce IR for expressions, functions and > function calls. > > I'm following the Kaleidoscope example and had a hard time de-tangling > the language specifics from LLVM syntax. Anyhow, I got here and I'd

Hello I've been looking to LLVM, in order to develop a compiler for a cryptography oriented language. I started by following the tutorials on Kaleidoscope, and I must say they were very usefull. Now I need to use GMP, so i can add Big Integer support. I am trying to change Kaleidoscope to support BigIntegers instead of doubles, but I don't really know how to do that. I'd really

>> 3. When the program is running, I'd like to print some values. As >> Kaleidoscope "returns" the value to the JIT, it's easy to give the >> answer, but in my case it won't happen. Do I need to create a simple >> IR routine to print doubles or is there something easy to use for that >> purpose? > > Yes, you'll probably need to

Where exactly is this mythical Kaleidoscope example? I have llvm 2.5 installed. examples dsw$ ls BrainF Fibonacci Makefile ParallelJIT CMakeLists.txt HowToUseJIT ModuleMaker > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 21:40:44 +0100 > From: Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLVM-Kaleidoscope tutorial > > 2009/10/3 Remy Demarest <remy.demarest at

Hi, I'm incrementing my toy compiler to account for variable mutations around if/else blocks. Reading the Kaleidoscope tutorial, I've learnt that I can substitute the PHI node creation by allocas and retrieving the value later, if needed. The Kaleidoscope example seems to account for one value only, the result of: Value *ThenV = Then->Codegen(); (...) Value *ElseV =

Hi all, Starting from Chapter 4 of the Kaleidoscope tutorial (where the JIT support is added), there's some strange behaviour, ready> def foo(x y) x+y; ready> Read function definition: define double @foo(double %x, double %y) { entry: %addtmp = fadd double %x, %y ret double %addtmp } ready> foo(1, 2); ready> Evaluated to 3.000000 ready> foo(3, 4); ready> Evaluated to

I try to understand cmake build configuration. As an example, I copied Kaleidoscope from llvm examples to some other directory (e.g., /tmp/Kaleidoscope). What change(s) that I need to make to "CMakkeLists.txt" in order to build Kaleidoscope from /tmp/Kaleidoscope? Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi Dmitri, You might want to try replacing the call to JMM->invalidInstructionCache() with a call to TheExecutionEngine->finalizeObject(). If you are getting a non-NULL pointer from getPointerToFunction but it crashes when you try to call it, that is most likely because the memory for the generated code has not been marked as executable. That happens inside finalizeObject, which also

Oh - I know what this is. You were running this on Linux, right? On MacOS I think the symbol is getting double mangled while going through MCJIT::getSymbolAddress, hence the failure: The IR level foo function gets compiled to "_foo" in the object file, and then "_foo" gets mangled to "__foo" when we look it up. Linux doesn't do assembly level name-mangling, so

True, I care more about how fast the code runs than how long it takes to compile it. So if the symbolic approach enables better code generation, that is a very significant advantage from my perspective. Is there any example code or documentation you can point to for details about how to implement the symbolic approach? Is it similar to any of the versions of Kaleidoscope or any other extant

For what it's worth we did a similar thing, but overrode RTDyldMemoryManager directly This allowed us to control where the RAM was allocated too (e.g. guarantee it was in the low 4GB so we could use small memory model and avoid the mov rax, xxxxxxx; call rax code generated for x86)*, and also override findSymbol() to have the same behaviour as described in 4). --matt * later issues in not

Cheers Lang! You were right, I was testing this on Linux. I was planning on committing these changes with the corresponding changes to the Kaleidoscope tutorial walk-through. Might be a bit of a surprise to have no explanation of what MCJITHelper and friends is doing. I'll try and make time to prepare some patches along these lines, as well as updating future chapters with the same fix.

We use an explicit relocation step to deal with this. We generate code into a temporary memory location, then relocate it into a reserved area of memory which is always within a small relative offset of other interesting code. This allows us to get pc relative calls. Philip On 03/30/2016 05:53 AM, Matt Godbolt wrote: > For what it's worth we did a similar thing, but > overrode

Hi all, I tried to modify Kaleidoscope Tutorial (toy.cpp from llvm/examples/Kaleidoscope/Chapter7, LLVM 3.3 release branch) in order to use MCJIT instead of JIT. I get segmentation fault when running toy.cpp with fibonacci example from the tutorial. My modified toy.cpp is in attachment and still works with JIT (when #define USE_MCJIT line is commented out). I read discussions regarding

Hi, Recently I saw a couple of cases in which the package vignettes were somewhat complicated so that Stangle() (or knitr::purl() or other tangling functions) can fail to produce the exact R code that is executed by the weaving function Sweave() (or knitr::knit(), ...). For example, this is a valid document that can pass the weaving process but cannot generate a valid R script to be source()d:

Lang, I added the add/get global mapping to my kaleidoscope JIT, but I think perhaps these would make more sense if they were added to the object linking layer as they would be generally usable there. On Aug 19, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Andy Somogyi wrote: > Hey Lang, > > I've added this to my Kaleidoscope JIT, and it seems to work just fine, basically I copied the global mapping

To try to find out why it was crashing, I followed the trail of function calls: C:\llvm\examples\Kaleidoscope\Orc\initial\toy.cpp auto ExprSymbol = J.findUnmangledSymbol("__anon_expr"); JITSymbol findUnmangledSymbol(const std::string Name) { return findSymbol(mangle(Name)); } JITSymbol findSymbol(const std::string &Name) { return CompileLayer.findSymbol(Name,

Hi Everyone, If you're JITing with LLVM and haven't made the switch to MCJIT already, now is the time. As per discussions on the mailing list and at the last dev meeting, LLVM 3.5 will be the last release to support the old JIT infrastructure. Now that LLVM 3.5 has branched, we plan to start removing the old JIT from the mainline. If you're looking for help in making the switch, Andy

Can't the code generator do this opportunistically? That is, generate the more compact instruction sequence if the address happens to be within four gigabytes, otherwise generate the longer form? On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Matt Godbolt <matt at godbolt.org> wrote: > For what it's worth we did a similar thing, but > overrode RTDyldMemoryManager directly This allowed us