similar to: [LLVMdev] Jit singleton

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

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

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,

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

The patch I recently attached to bug 2606, reproduced here, is my first attempt to solve this issue as represented by the attached test cases. To solve the foreign Module GlobalVariable problem, I modified JIT::getOrEmitGlobalVariable(...) to directly attempt to map a found "external" GlobalVariable. To solve the foreign Module Function problem, I modified both JIT.{h,cpp} and

[sidenote: Please try to avoid extraneous whitespace and line wrapping changes in your patches. It makes it harder to see what you're actually changing] On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Olivier, > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 14:10, Olivier Meurant wrote: > > Hi Garrison, > > I finally come back from holidays and take

Hi Olivier, On Feb 25, 2010, at 14:10, Olivier Meurant wrote: > Hi Garrison, > > I finally come back from holidays and take time to watch your patch. > > I must say that I largely prefer this version over the previous one ! I like the reuse of getLazyFunctionStub, but I don't know if the forceEmitFunctionStub is still needed ? JIT::forceEmitFunctionStub(...) was created to

I just located a concurrency error in my LLVM patch to add locks to the JIT. I did not add any locks to the JITResolver class in JITEmitter.cpp, which clearly is a problem since This particular issue causes an assertion failure on occasion when running a task that spawns threads on a parallel machine. Any recommendations about if I am doing something that seems horribly wrong are welcome. I'll

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. >

Right now, on X86, creating multiple ExecutionEngines in the same process causes an assertion. If it's supposed to always be a singleton, should there be a way to get the process's ExecutionEngine instance? This would, among other things, allow "lli" to execute bitcode that itself uses the ExecutionEngine.

Hi Garrison, I finally come back from holidays and take time to watch your patch. I must say that I largely prefer this version over the previous one ! I like the reuse of getLazyFunctionStub, but I don't know if the forceEmitFunctionStub is still needed ? I thought about JIT and modules, and I wonder if we don't need to take it another way. Now we can create multiples JIT. What if we

This is the second version of a patch, which I recently attached to bug 2606, whose original version was modified to reflect the lists comments. Also please note the comment at the end of this email, which basically questions whether this bug is really a bug. 1) To solve the foreign Module GlobalVariable problem, I modified JIT::getOrEmitGlobalVariable(...) to directly attempt to map a found

In thinking about this we could use a Mutex::tryacquire(...) (non-recursive), around JIT::runJITOnFunctionUnlocked(...)'s while loop, and use your JITEmitter:: getLazyFunctionStub(...) suggestion in place of forceEmitFunctionStub(...). Is the lock attempt too heavy, even if it is implemented with atomics? I'll implement this when I have time. Garrison On Feb 17, 2010, at 15:42, Garrison

Hi Olivier, Thanks for responding! I get to learn this way. On Feb 17, 2010, at 12:50, Olivier Meurant wrote: > Hi Garrison, > > I am not a specialist of the code but here is my 2 cents: > > - I like the idea that in lazy-mode the call (in module or not) is treated by a stub (like every calls). If we go further with this, I'll have to add test cases for lazy mode. I kind

Hi Jeffrey, On Feb 26, 2010, at 16:02, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > [sidenote: Please try to avoid extraneous whitespace and line wrapping changes in your patches. It makes it harder to see what you're actually changing] Sorry just saw some preexisting code was not in 80 columns. > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Evan Jones wrote: > I just located a concurrency error in my LLVM patch to add locks to the > JIT. I did not add any locks to the JITResolver class in JITEmitter.cpp, > which clearly is a problem since This particular issue causes an > assertion failure on occasion when running a task that spawns threads on > a parallel machine. Any recommendations about if I am

Hi everyone, Here's a patch that enables exception handling when jitting. I've copy/pasted _many_code from lib/Codegen/DwarfWriter.cpp, so we may need to factorize it, but the functionality is there and I'm very happy with it :) lli should now be able to execute the output from llvm-gcc when using exceptions (the UnwindInst instruction is not involved in this patch). Just add the

Hi Nick, On 9/20/2013 5:59 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Sep 20, 2013, at 3:42 PM, Shankar Easwaran > <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> nextFile could pass the current resolver state at the time when its called, the linkingcontext can return the next file to be processed as below :- >> >> nextFile(currentResolverState) :- >> >> a) Returns the next