similar to: [LLVMdev] Using LLVM to generate x86 dynamically in memory

On Feb 2, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Shasank Chavan wrote: > Hi. I'm very new to LLVM, and have read some of the documentation online. Before I invest too much time, however, in learning about LLVM, I'd like to know if it can be used for my purpose. We currently have a critical runtime component that evaluates expressions via interpretation. The bytecode that we generate goes through

Hi Jim. Thanks for your speedy response. I'm not entirely sure if a JIT is what I'm looking for. I'm basically looking for a dll with an interface that takes a C program as input and compiles and optimizes it to native x86 instructions in an in-memory buffer. I don't want the dll the execute it, and I don't particularly want to translate our expressions into LLVM bitcode

This can be done. Last year I took clang (v. 2.5) and hacked the compiler driver into a library which would JIT C source to memory. I then created a Zend extension which utilized the library. No external frameworks were used in these hacks, and were fairly simple to implement once one knew how to use the Clang/LLVM libraries. I cannot speak to your dll requirement, as the work was done for Linux.

Hi. I have a very quick question. Is the instruction cache flushed by the llvm jit before code in memory is written to or executed? I'm assuming so, but I can't find where in the source code this is happening. In particular I searched for clflush, invd, and wbinvd instructions, but couldn't find them. And if it's not necessary to do this, can you please explain why? (I'm

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Shasank Chavan <shanko_chavano at hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jim.  Thanks for your speedy response.  I'm not entirely sure if a JIT is > what I'm looking for.  I'm basically looking for a dll with an interface > that takes a C program as input and compiles and optimizes it to native x86 > instructions in an in-memory buffer.  I don't

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Shasank Chavan <shanko_chavano at hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi.  I have a very quick question.  Is the instruction cache flushed by the > llvm jit before code in memory is written to or executed?  I'm assuming so, > but I can't find where in the source code this is happening.  In particular > I searched for clflush, invd, and wbinvd

Hi Reid. Thanks for your response. We will be running this code in different processes across different nodes. Basically we have thousands of "executor" processes that are solely responsible for executing this code generated at compile-time across partitioned data. Rather than each one of these processes invoking the jit and compiling with full opts and all of that, we believe it may

Thanks Reid. What you wrote makes a lot of sense. The more I learn about the LLVM, the more I'll be able to determine how easy it would be to translate our IR into it. If it proves too difficult, I'll do what you suggested. Thanks again everyone for your responses... - Shasank > From: rnk at mit.edu > Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 22:11:50 -0500 > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Using

If you really trying to avoid linking everything into a shared library (easiest choice), consider splitting up the compilation into a few more steps: 1) Compile and optimize once as part of your build, target LLVM bitcode instead of machine code 2) Ship .bc files out to each node 3) Fix-up call instructions in a BasicBlockPass, run JIT without any/many additional IR optimizations enabled This

Hi. I have more questions regarding llvm and using it as a jit for our purposes. Also, let me confess that I haven't actually used llvm yet (I'm still prototyping using gnu's libjit). Some of the issues that have come up from that work so far leads to me these questions: 1) We intend to use llvm as a jit in our expression compiler at compile-time only. At runtime, the x86 code

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Shasank Chavan <shanko_chavano at hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi.  I have more questions regarding llvm and using it as a jit for our > purposes.  Also, let me confess that I haven't actually used llvm yet (I'm > still prototyping using gnu's libjit).  Some of the issues that have come up > from that work so far leads to me these questions:

If you distribute the .bc to a new machine and JIT it there, you wouldn't need to apply any relocations to call instructions, since the JIT will get all the offsets right when it does code generation on the node. I would strongly recommend the shared library approach over this one, because JIT compile time is dominated by code generation, not optimization. If you distribute the .bcs, then

Hi, The problem is modern c++. I can have a reasonable system boostrape-ed with (tinycc/alternative C compiler), but only in the gcc world since a modern c++ compiler is only bootsrape-able from near any C compiler there. clang and llvm are unable to do it. That why I would need to get 2 gccs: "any C compiler" -> gcc 4.7.4 -> gcc recent_version -> llvm. On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 07:15:39PM +0100, Renato Golin wrote: > On 12 October 2016 at 18:37, <sylvain.bertrand at gmail.com> wrote: > > Suggestion is not clear answer. How such a decision taken? Is there a board of > > people which have to vote to valid the choice of minimal gcc (and clang) version > > effective? > > We don't have such process, unfortunately.

Just for the interest of discussion, I find it completely weird and interesting that GCC needs to build itself 3 times to fully bootstrap. Has there been any interest in looking at a single compile build? I don't exactly know the limitations, but my naive thinking is that C++14 compiler source parsed by C++14 capable compiler and codegen'd to C99 (or older) source should make it compilable

I've tried compiling with tinycc, and assembling with yasm, and fasm even with intel syntax. I'm just wondering what available compilers and assemblers there are without trying every one of them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090408/b779a781/attachment.html>

Hi Daniel, To my knowledge, there is no other implementation available for Steensgaard AA except poolalloc. I have tried Steensgaard AA under LLVM 2.7 poolalloc, but there are lots of bugs which need to be fixed. It will be a good idea to use previous implementation, but you will have to modify (a lot) it with respect to the latest version of LLVM poolalloc. Thanks, -Yogesh -------------- next

Hi, I am new to citrix xen server. I have sucesfully installed citrix xen server 5.6.1 Fp1(free version) on my system. and through xencenter I have connected citrix xenserver and created vm (centos 5.5 32 bit), Installed Xen-tools in centos. My xenserver and xen vm ip details are below Xenserver Ip address - 192.168.1.5 Netmask - 255.255.255.0 Gateway - 192.168.1.1 which is my xencenter

Hi All, If you've using yum and have added ftp.sernet...... to your yum.repos.d the paths have changed. The documentation on the Samba site is no longer accurate,I'm hoping someone will update this once I mention it? Thanks _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection.

> I've tried compiling with tinycc, and assembling with yasm, and fasm even > with intel syntax. I'm just wondering what available compilers and > assemblers there are without trying every one of them. gas -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University