similar to: [LLVMdev] 2nd attempt for a working patch for bug 2606

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear all, Here's a new patch with Evan's comments (thx Evan!) and some cleanups. Now the (duplicated) exception handling code is in a new file: lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JITDwarfEmitter. This patch should work on linux/x86 and linux/ppc (tested). Nicolas -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: jit-exceptions.patch URL:

Hi all, I need to run c++ prgrams using lli. However, I find lli cannot handle the alias instruction correctly. Following is an example: ------------ example.cc ------------- #include <iostream> using namespace std; class cls { public: cls(); ~cls(); }; cls::cls() { cout << "constructor" << endl; }; cls::~cls() { cout <<

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

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

Hi Jeffrey, I'm still in the process of learning the unittest technology. While I did get distracted with test-suite and test, and therefore the requisite installs of llvm-gcc, and DejaGNU, I think I'm back on track now. So that was a waste of time. By the way the reference I have to the unittests target was in an archive for this list. Is there no llvm level doc for this? Regardless the

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

Looks sane. Thanks. Evan On Feb 1, 2008, at 1:24 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Dear all, > > Here's a new patch with Evan's comments (thx Evan!) and some cleanups. > Now the (duplicated) exception handling code is in a new file: > lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JITDwarfEmitter. > > This patch should work on linux/x86 and linux/ppc (tested). > > Nicolas > Index:

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 Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > I do have one question though. After having done the fix and the appropriate unit tests, > does one still need to add to the tests suite for the testing bots, and add to test for make > check (for this kind of bug fix)? Do the unittests somehow get invoked by make check? I > guess I don't

>> Today I found a nice bug in the JIT global variable emitter. >> The problem may lead to an assert() failure when doing the following: >> 1) compile some function >> 2) emit a global variable >> 3) compile another function. an assert() may trigger in the JIT memory >> manager >> >> This happens because the JIT global variable emitter is using the

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