similar to: [LLVMdev] JIT::freeMachineCodeForFunction(Function *F) on ARM

Hello Everyone, Does void JIT::freeMachineCodeForFunction(Function *F) work on arm? I get a crash when I call it on arm.I don't have access to gdb on the simulator I am using , so can't say for sure if it works. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, In my application I am JITing thousands of functions, though I am doing it sequantially and running only one at a time. So it is crucial to be able to properly clean up the memory from an old JITed function when JITing and running the new one. I am using Haskell binding of LLVM and my application works OK. However, memory usage increases and never decreases during the run time of my

Hm, I wonder if the error message for llvm_unreachable should change. I think I remember a couple people focusing incorrectly on the UNREACHABLE instead of the actual error message above it (which means it's our fault, not theirs). Miranda, this is pointing at the same problem you had before. You have a function JIT-compiled, and you're trying to RAUW (ReplaceAllUsesWith) it. You'll

Hi, Was this ever resolved? I'm curious, I'm also in a situation where there may be many (very many) JITted functions over the history of an application (which may be running for many days) Thanks On Mar 20, 2009, at 7:34 AM, George Giorgidze wrote: > Hi, > > In my application I am JITing thousands of functions, though I am > doing it sequantially and running only

Just updated the source and now I get the unreachable error again. The JIT doesn't know how to handle a RAUW on a value it has emitted. UNREACHABLE executed at /home/conrado/engines/llvm/lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JITEmitter.cpp:1542! I think that it's not helpful now, but I can post the program, if you want me to. On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at

Hello, The problem I'm having is that I modify a function body by using 'Value::replaceAllUsesWith' and then execute it with the JIT engine several times but I always get the output from the first iteration for all the iterations. This is what I do: I generate the following 2 functions on the fly based on the FunctionType of the declaration below in C code. define i32

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Dale Johannesen<dalej at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2009, at 5:41 PMPDT, Reid Kleckner wrote: > >> So I (think I) found a bug in the JIT: >> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4483 >> >> Basically, globals used by a function are allocated in the same buffer >> as the first code that uses it.  However, when you

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

getFunction() -> getPointerToFunction() 2014-06-29 6:40 GMT+03:00 Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com>: > Hi Adrian, > > freeMachineCodeForFunction is required but recompileAndLinkFunction is > not, > you can use getFunction() always. > > Try to M->dump() calling M->getFunction() where M is the Module *. > See if how the changes appear in the module

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

That's a good point.  But it's worth noting that recompileAndRelinkFunction() and freeMachineCodeForFunction() are both vestiges of the old JIT (i.e. the "JIT" as opposed to the "MCJIT").  The old JIT is no longer actively supported. -Phil On April 26, 2014 at 9:47:05 AM, Sri (emdcdeveloper at gmail.com) wrote: Hi Fillip                  Addition to my previous

Hi Chris, Thanks for pointing me to that presentation! It helped me come up with a strategy that I believe might work: 1) Use CloneFunction() to make a copy of the original unspecialized (but optimized) function. 2) Specialize it using a custom function pass which identifies the specialization parameters and substitutes them with given run-time constants. 3) Run the function through a

Hi, I'm testing how to free memory of a JIT'd function. I thought ExecutionEngine::freeMachineCodeForFunction() and Function::eraseFromParent() would work and did a test with the following sample code. But I found that the memory usage of the process is constantly growing as the while loop goes. Could someone shed light on this please? Here is the code. int main(int argc, char **argv) {

Hi Filip Thank you for your detailed explanation, I was actually looking to implement an adaptive approach which is basically when some function executed more frequently, I was trying to drop that function and compiled and linked with new optimized function. I just did the following - whenever some function executed more times , I called-back to program, so I that I

Great! It just worked. I was a bit worried about using pointers to call functions because it's a little too overwhelming in a big project, I think. Just for the record, if the function code isn't freed with freeMachineCodeForFunction, I get a segmentation fault during recompileAndRelinkFunction with this stack dump: Running pass 'X86 Machine Code Emitter' on function

Hi, I put the sample code and a brief analysis using Valgrind to GitHub in order to make my problem clear. https://github.com/naosuke/how-to-free-memory-of-JIT-function The Valgrind heap profiler indicates memory leaking but I don't get what is wrong with the way to free memory. If someone could please offer some advice/suggestion on this, I would really appreciate it. Best, Naosuke On

There may be another explanation, but I've seen this sort of issues before: LLVM uses several object pools (associated w/ LLVM context and JIT engine), and often objects from these pools are leaked, or the pools grow infinitely due to implementation bugs. These are not an ordinary memory leaks, as destroying the LLVM context and/or JIT engine will successfully reclaim all the memory. The

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Conrado Miranda <miranda.conrado at gmail.com> wrote: > Albert Graef wrote: >> >> The way I do this in Pure is to always call global functions in an >> indirect fashion, using an internal global variable which holds the >> current function pointer. When a function definition gets updated, the >> Pure interpreter just jits the

LLVMers, The 2.5 pre-release is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.5/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. Please do the following: 1) Download/compile llvm source, and either compile llvm-gcc source or use llvm-gcc binary (please compile llvm-gcc with fortran if you can). 2) Run make check, send me the testrun.log 3) Run "make

On Jun 30, 2009, at 11:18 AMPDT, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Dale Johannesen<dalej at apple.com> > wrote: >> >> On Jun 29, 2009, at 5:41 PMPDT, Reid Kleckner wrote: >> >>> So I (think I) found a bug in the JIT: >>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4483 >>> >>> Basically, globals used by a