similar to: [LLVMdev] bitcode with llvm-gcc (mingw) for windows

Hi, i'm currently building a small JIT compiler. For the language I need a runtime library for some special math functions. I think the best would be to compile the lib to bitcode and link it. The compiler should be integrated in a product and as of this, it must work under windows (VC10, 64bit). So is it possible to build the math lib with the mingw llvm-gcc build an link it later with the

Hi, i need to check if an overflow of an floating-point arithmetic operation occured. Currently I'm doing something like this (for addition): (LHS > 0 && RHS > 0 && sum <= 0) || (LHS < 0 && RHS < 0 && sum >= 0) This is checked for every addition. Is there a more efficient way like the intrisic for int overflow? How is it possible to raise a

Hi Björn, I'm not sure I understand what you are actually trying to achieve. Do you want to be able to debug from your main code, and step into the JITed code? Do you want to be able to set breakpoints, list callstacks, etc in the JITed code? Do you want to, from a crash, identify where in your JITed code it went wrong? The first two are definitely one or more order(s) of magnitude harder

On Jul 23, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Steffen Geißinger wrote: > i need to check if an overflow of an floating-point arithmetic operation occured. > Currently I'm doing something like this (for addition): > > (LHS > 0 && RHS > 0 && sum <= 0) || (LHS < 0 && RHS < 0 && sum >= 0) IEEE floating-point doesn't overflow like this; if the

Hello, i know that the result is infinte, but there are sill flags in the FPU which indicate that an overflow, underflow or div by zero occured. So isn't there an easy way to check if one of those flags is set? 2010/7/23 John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> > On Jul 23, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Steffen Geißinger wrote: > > i need to check if an overflow of an floating-point

Hi, I found the following wiki page in the Unladen Swallow project: http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/CodeLifecycle This would appear to answer my question. Could someone confirm for me if it's definitely unsafe to attempt to optimise/JIT any Modules while a different thread is currently executing a JITed function which has been generated from them? Or am I just missing

I have an app that's dynamically generating and JITing code, and will have many such cases in the course of its run. They need to be JITed separately, because I need to execute the first batch before I know what the second one will be. Of course, I *still* need to execute the first after the need for the second arises, so I need to retain the JITed machine code for all the functions I

Hi Stephen, I confirm your observation. AFAIK the current JIT keeps informations from the module, for example AssertingHandle on Values. It's part of my plan to make the MCJIT independent from Module stuff to allow reoptimizations, or to have multiple copies of JITed functions for one function in the module, but there is a long road to go. Olivier. On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Stephen

Hi, Has anyone had any success with running different PassManagers on llvm::Modules they've already JITed and are executing? In detail: 1) getting the IR, in form of an llvm::Module 2) calling PassManager->run() on the module 3) calling getFunction() and getPointerToFunction() to JIT the module 4) executing the JITed code using the function pointer received in step 3 and then what I

What I was thinking is that if you need to link to module A to functions in module B (which you know might be re-JITed) you can have a stub function that gets used as the address called by module A and then you can use some brute force approach to maintain the actual address of the function in module B as it is re-JITed (maybe the stub could be a lightweight class with a member variable that's

On Aug 16, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Larry Gritz wrote: > I have an app that's dynamically generating and JITing code, and will have many such cases in the course of its run. They need to be JITed separately, because I need to execute the first batch before I know what the second one will be. Of course, I *still* need to execute the first after the need for the second arises, so I need to retain

Do you want to be able to debug from your main code, and step into the JITed code? Do you want to be able to set breakpoints, list callstacks, etc in the JITed code? Do you want to, from a crash, identify where in your JITed code it went wrong? The first two are definitely one or more order(s) of magnitude harder to solve than the third one, since you basically have to tell your debugger that

I am using LLVM to compile script code and then executing using the JIT compiler via the runFunction() method. The script code is contained with a C++ program compiled with G++. I am having a problem when an intrinsic function (i.e. a function implemented in C++ which is called from the LLVM compiled script) throws a C++ exception. I want the exception to be caught by the C++ code that invoked the

Hello LLVM-People, I'm still a beginner with the LLVM, but I really like the concept and the possibilities with the JIT. Currently I compile simple functions with clang-cl into bitcode files. After this I use another program to JIT this bitcode files and execute functions of it - like lli. Thanks to a lot of mails and so on, I understood that a bitcode file is in fact still IR-Code, but

On Aug 17, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Owen Anderson wrote: > In principle this ought to work, if you're careful. Are you sure you're not generating code that calls into functions that got totally inlined away? How would I know? > Are you running the Verifier pass at regular intervals? Yes, both before and after the set of optimization passes. So let me clarify what I'm doing: I

Hello, Chuck > Would my life be made fantastically simpler if I were using a different > calling convention for my callback functions on x64 running on Windows? Yes, surely. You can still use 'normal' x86-64 CC if you don't want to call any external functions from code being JITed. Also note a Win64 fixme in the X86CompilationCallback2 function, this can be your case. I think

Hi, Can anyone tell me something about mmap and vm_protect on ARM+Apple systems? I'm working on a new memory manager implementation for MCJIT and I want to replace calls to Memory::AllocateRWX with calls to Memory::allocateMappedMemory, possibly still with the RWX flags. However, looking at the Memory::AllocateRWX implementation I see that it's jumping through some hoops in the case

wine is 1.1.21 I use VC10 beta1 compiler on window, and it's work fine. The Windows is pure: not install any software. That mean is: The VC 10 is a portable software. I can compile main.cpp use: ./cl.exe /EHsc main.cpp it's OK! the main.exe created! but if i do: ./cl.exe /EHsc /Zi main.cpp it's fair. the error information is: > loaden at qpsoft:~/qpcb/bin$ ./cl.exe /EHsc /Zi

Unfortunately, LLVM doesn't really know how to generate debug info for JITed code yet. All it can tell you or a debugger is the symbol and the unwind information for unwinding exceptions through JITed code. Hopefully the MC JIT will make that problem go away. Reid On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Michael Muller <mmuller at enduden.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Can someone

On Jan 29, 2013, at 21:41 , edA-qa mort-ora-y <eda-qa at disemia.com> wrote: > How can I properly exit from code being executed via > "ExecutionEngine::runFunction"? My JIT'd code is executing and it calls > a function in the host program. This host function then decides the > executing code should be stopped and wants to return from runFunction. If the executing