similar to: [LLVMdev] Is ExecutionEngine always meant to be a singleton?

On Oct 8, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > Right now, on X86, creating multiple ExecutionEngines in the same > process causes an assertion. > Yes. This is by design. > If it's supposed to always be a singleton, should there be a way to > get the process's ExecutionEngine instance? > I can't see why. You could make a server to process llvm code. >

Hello all, I've already bothered people on IRC with this question and it was recommended to ask it here. First of all, some context. In Rubinius (http://rubini.us/, http://github.com/rubinius/rubinius) we use LLVM for our JIT. We create LLVM IR using the C++ API and turn that into machine code using ExecutionEngine::runJITOnFunction. The resulting native code is then installed as the

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink at gmail.com>wrote: > Hello all, > > I've already bothered people on IRC with this question and it was > recommended to ask it here. > > First of all, some context. In Rubinius (http://rubini.us/, > http://github.com/rubinius/rubinius) we use LLVM for our JIT. We create > LLVM IR using the C++ API and

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

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

Hi Andy, One of the issues that I found not intuitive, is that when an ExecutionEngine is deallocated, the memory manager's destructor is also called. This resulted in having to write two objects in my case, one as a per JIT request memory manager and one global JIT memory manager. The per request JIT memory manager gets memory from the global manager, but both ended up implementing

Hi all. I'm working on the recently-announced unladen-swallow project, and I'm having a bit of trouble getting gdb to step into functions I've compiled with LLVM's JIT compiler. The attached a_module.ll is the module I produce from compiling def foo(r): for i in r: pass I'm JIT-compiling and running foo() with: typedef PyObject *(*NativeFunction)(PyFrameObject *);

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 reply, nice to have some validation. I thought of another approach which might be preferable: generate relocatable code, use a JITEventListener to grab each function and copy it to my own memory, let all the LLVM stuff die normally then use my copy of the code. However when I call setRelocationModel(Reloc::PIC_) on the engine builder I get code that seg faults. The assembly looks

Hello Duncan, > thanks for your interesting email. Do you understand why PyPy is no longer > using LLVM, and why Unladen Swallow died? Does LLVM need to be improved in > some way? The answers to all these questions are linked: LLVM is not fast enough (for a JIT). Of course this is not the whole story, but it is the LLVM-relevant part. Let's have a look at some random performance

I'm not sure I see why the delegating memory manager feels wrong to both of you. That's exactly the kind of usage model I would envision for clients that needed to handle multiple ExecutionEngines that had reason to share a memory manager. I'm saying this as an invitation to discussion, not to be argumentative. We certainly could change things if it would make the design better.

Hi Dirkjan, Are you using JIT or MCJIT? Cheers. ________________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] on behalf of Dirkjan Bussink [d.bussink at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:18 AM To: Kaylor, Andrew Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Memory clean for applications using LLVM for JIT compilation Hi Andy, One

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 Travis, ... > LLVM is still very relevant to Python because of projects like Numba --- but you > should know that PyPy is no longer using LLVM and Unladen Swallow has not been > worked on for several years. The future of LLVM and Python I think is very > bright --- especially for the scientific and data-analysis user-base. thanks for your interesting email. Do you understand

In X86CodeGen.cpp, the following code appears in the handler used for CALL64pcrel32 instructions: // Assume undefined functions may be outside the Small codespace. bool NeedStub = (Is64BitMode && (TM.getCodeModel() == CodeModel::Large || TM.getSubtarget<X86Subtarget>().isTargetDarwin())) || Opcode == X86::TAILJMPd;

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2010, at 7:05 PM, Steven Noonan wrote: >> I've been doing work on memory reduction in Unladen Swallow, and >> during testing, LiveRanges seemed to be consuming one of the largest >> chunks of memory. > > That's interesting. How did you measure this? I'd

Run with -debug-only=jit. Break on line 1148 of JITEmitter.cpp. The debugging message will tell you the address and size of the function that was jitted. You can then tell gdb to disassemble the code. On Mar 26, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > Hi all. I'm working on the recently-announced unladen-swallow project, > and I'm having a bit of trouble getting gdb to

Hi, Slightly off-topic (as it's not directly about using or developing LLVM): http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/ProjectPlan "Our long-term proposal is to replace CPython's custom virtual machine with a JIT built on top of LLVM, while leaving the rest of the Python runtime relatively intact." Just curious, has anyone here heard more about this project? Regards,

On Jun 10, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > In X86CodeGen.cpp, the following code appears in the handler used for > CALL64pcrel32 instructions: > > // Assume undefined functions may be outside the Small > codespace. > bool NeedStub = > (Is64BitMode && > (TM.getCodeModel() == CodeModel::Large || >