similar to: [LLVMdev] Patch proposal submission process query

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 the jit is in non-lazy mode, I'm not really fan of the "stub" solution. Is it not possible to use the same mechanism as it already exists : add the function to pending list and emit it after the current

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

I think so. It also fails the same way on LLVM trunk from last week. The full backtrace is below. It appears that frame #3 is a compilation of __l_personality() and frame #14 is a compilation of f(). The compilation of __l_personality appears to have been triggered by the need to output DWARF information for f(). -- James #0 0x00007ffff6ed84b5 in *__GI_raise (sig=<value optimised out>) at

Eek! I'm going to lose track of the threads if you start a new one every time you update the patch. Consider using http://codereview.appspot.com/? On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > Hey all, > Attached you will find an experimental patch which allows me to play with a > derived JIT class. With this patch > I've alleviated

FWIW, I don't like the idea of adding a new JIT class to support linking. I think you can do it without this. On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > Hey all, > Attached you will find an experimental patch which allows me to play with a > derived JIT class. With this patch > I've alleviated my concerns with forcing cross

Hey all, Attached you will find an experimental patch which allows me to play with a derived JIT class. With this patch I've alleviated my concerns with forcing cross module behavior for all users of JIT. However this introduces some new semantics, and kind of circumvents the EngineBuilder API. More important though, I have not addressed any concern about using stub functions in eager

No problem I'll drop this from our discussion as it really is only germane to my learning path and imagination. :-) I do at this time still have this concern of allowing a user (developer) the right to turn this "cross module linkage" off, but I'm still in the process of understanding your previous comments on this. Thanks again for the help and time by the way. Garrison PS:

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

[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 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

Interesting. Was this the reason you were getting the recursive compilation error in JIT::runJITOnFunctionUnlocked(...) (isAlreadyCodeGenerating)? Do you have the time to try your test with 2.7? Garrison On Jan 22, 2010, at 17:37, James Williams wrote: > I've worked around this issue in my test case by simply calling my personality function on program to ensure it's JIT'ed

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

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

I've worked around this issue in my test case by simply calling my personality function on program to ensure it's JIT'ed before any unwind happens. -- James 2010/1/22 Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> > No, there is no magic. :-) > > To me though, the tools are magic, because I have no clue what they are > doing without looking at them and using them. >

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

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > 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

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

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > Won't passing llvm::Function* around vs strings (function names), also work, at code generation time, > without the need for a module A dec to module B impl. mapping? > > Garrison Nope. You cannot place a call instruction into one module whose callee is a Function from another module. You

Hi James, Just wanted to update you. As you implied the problem here is that the personality function has to be jitted before the code that contains the corresponding llvm.eh.selector intrinsic instruction is jitted. I verified this by creating a generated version of the personality function which unless I jitted first, gave me the same error when running the code. Since you are using tools

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > No problem I'll drop this from our discussion as it really is only germane to my > learning path and imagination. :-) I do at this time still have this concern of > allowing a user (developer) the right to turn this "cross module linkage" off, but > I'm still in the process of