similar to: [LLVMdev] Module management questions

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

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

On Aug 18, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Reid Kleckner wrote: > You can free the machine code yourself by saying > EE->freeMachineCodeForFunction(F) . If you destroy the EE, it will > also free the machine code. Thanks, but unfortunately, this is exactly the opposite of what I want to do. I need to retain the machine code indefinitely, but I want to free all possible other resources that are

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Larry Gritz <lg at larrygritz.com> wrote: > 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

YES. My use of LLVM involves an app that JITs program after program and will quickly swamp memory if everything is retained. It is crucial to aggressively throw everything away but the functions we still need to execute. I've been faking it with old JIT (llvm 3.4/3.5) by using a custom subclass of JITMemoryManager that squirrels away the jitted binary code so that when I free the Modules,

Thanks for the pointer, it's always helpful to be able to see how another project solved similar problems. > On Mar 8, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Andy Ayers <andya at microsoft.com> wrote: > > FWIW, LLILC (https://github.com/dotnet/llilc) uses MCJIT with a custom memory manager to hold onto the binary bits and discard the rest. > > As far as I know it doesn't leak, though

I have a whole slew of questions about optimization passes. Answers to any or all would be extremely helpful: How important are doInitialization/doFinalization? I can't detect any difference if I use them or not. Why does the function pass manager have doInitialization/doFinalization, but the global pass manager doesn't? If I am applying the function passes to many functions, do I

Thanks so much! This seems to do the trick. I would have spun my wheels for a long time before discovering all of this, wow. Do I even want to know what additional chickens need to be sacrificed to get this to work on Windows? -- lg > On May 18, 2016, at 1:52 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Larry, > > You're basically there, but you're hitting

When using ORC JIT, I'm having trouble with external function resolution (that is, of a function defined in the app, with C linkage). I add a declaration for the function to my IR, and when I use MCJIT, it finds it and all is well, But when I use ORC JIT (I *think* correctly, at least it closely matches what I see in the tutorial), I get an LLVM error, "Program used external function

I'm having a problem with MCJIT (in LLVM 3.3 and 3.4), in which it's not resolving symbol mangling in a precompiled bitcode in the same way as old JIT. It's possible that it's just my misunderstanding. Maybe somebody can spot my problem, or identify it as an MCJIT bug. Here's my situation, in a nutshell: * I am assembling IR and JITing in my app. The IR may potentially make

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Larry Gritz <lg at larrygritz.com> wrote: > On Aug 18, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Reid Kleckner wrote: > >> You can free the machine code yourself by saying >> EE->freeMachineCodeForFunction(F) .  If you destroy the EE, it will >> also free the machine code. > > Thanks, but unfortunately, this is exactly the opposite of what I want

Hi Larry, Thanks so much! This seems to do the trick. I would have spun my wheels for > a long time before discovering all of this, wow. No worries. :) I'll try to keep this in mind and make sure I address it in future Kaleidoscope tutorial chapters - these issues tripped me up the first time I encountered them too. Do I even want to know what additional chickens need to be sacrificed

>> llvm::sys::DynamicLibrary::LoadLibraryPermanently(nullptr) This is one is a bit tricky and hard to find. I spent quiet some time digging into MC and ORC JIT execution engines trying to find what makes them work. The problem is that this trick (LoadLibraryPermanently) happens inside of EngineBuilder, despite that the functionality belongs to a JIT engine itself, not to the builder. I

Thanks for the pointers. Am I correct in assuming that putting the precompiled bitcode into a second module and linking (or using the object caches) would result in ordinary function calls, but would not be able to inline the functions? -- lg On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > I would say that the incompatibility is by design. Not

Larry, On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Larry Gritz <lg at larrygritz.com> wrote: > I have a whole slew of questions about optimization passes. Answers to any > or all would be extremely helpful: > > How important are doInitialization/doFinalization? Most of the passes do not use them. > I can't detect any difference if I use them or not. Say, if you are writing

Another usage case, slightly different than your #1: 6. Dynamic code generation (not interactive with respect to the source code) - app generates code IR which is compiled as needed for execution (important difference: no waiting for a typing human in the loop, so very different expectations about responsiveness and bottlenecks) - compilation speed IS critical (because many such

OK, fine -- an example of MCJIT that sets up for PTX JIT would also be helpful. On Dec 6, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > > You'll have to switch to MCJIT for this purpose. Legacy JIT doesn't emit PTX. > > Eli -- Larry Gritz lg at larrygritz.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Ah, that's helpful. I knew that I'd need to end up with PTX as text, not a true binary, but I would have figured that it would come out of MCJIT. Thanks for helping to steer me away from the wrong trail. OK, one more question: Can anybody clarify the pros and cons of generating the PTX through the standard LLVM distro, versus using the "libnvvm" that comes with the Cuda SDK?

On Aug 11, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Larry Gritz wrote: > I have a whole slew of questions about optimization passes. Answers to any or all would be extremely helpful: > > How important are doInitialization/doFinalization? I can't detect any difference if I use them or not. Why does the function pass manager have doInitialization/doFinalization, but the global pass manager doesn't?

Hi Gael, I tried converting to your approach but I had some issues making sure that all symbols accessed by the jit modules have entries in the dynamic symbol table. To be specific, my current approach is to use MCJIT (using an objectcache) to JIT the runtime module and then let MCJIT handle linking any references from the jit'd modules; I just experimented with what I think you're doing,