similar to: [LLVMdev] MC-JIT Streamer 2/3

I cleaned up the indentation in the three patches and attached them. Please let me know if there are other issues. The patches should all apply cleanly with the latest revision. I will wait with submitting more patches until the MCJITSTreamer has been reviewed and checked in. Thanks, Jan --- On Sat, 8/21/10, Bruno Cardoso Lopes <bruno.cardoso at gmail.com> wrote: From: Bruno Cardoso

I was delayed creating the smaller patches, but finally I had some time to put the first set together. There are three small patches, the first two are classes the MCJITStreamer uses, and the last patch is the MCJITStreamer class itself. - Jan --- On Sun, 8/1/10, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > From: Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev]

Hi Jan, I would rather not work with a patch this large. Can you pull out the addition of the MCJITStreamer into its own patch, and we can iterate on getting that in as a single commit? I realize it won't work or do anything useful, but I can't deal with reviewing patches this large. The main thing I am concerned about is getting the basic design of how the streamer and the assembler and

This patch contains the initial implementation of MCJIT. - Jan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0019_mcjit.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 42198 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100728/2eb6ac65/attachment.patch>

MCJITSreamer Implementatino -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0023_mcjit_mcstreamer.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 17805 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100820/07d59c55/attachment.patch>

I have cleaned up the code somewhat that Olivier wrote and split up the patch into three pieces. This first is to make the MCJIT not have to initialize all asm printers, but only the native one. - Jan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0018_nativeasmprinterinit.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 12993 bytes Desc: not available URL:

Hi Jan, Applied with edits in r109996, thanks! I wasn't happy about the change to add "Target" everywhere -- I just added a local hack in TargetSelect.h to workaround this. We should really change the definition of LLVM_NATIVE_TARGET, but I am not in a configure hacking mood. - Daniel On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Jan Sjodin <jan_sjodin at yahoo.com> wrote: > I have

Together with Jan Sjodin (in copy of this email), we begin an implementation of the JIT with MC. The idea, suggested by Jan, is to develop a MCJIT in parallel of the current JIT and to keep the two implementations until (at least) the new MC one is mature enough. Currently code is kept on gitorious (http://gitorious.org/llvm-mc-jit/llvm-mc-jit). Following this, a boolean "bool MCJIT =

Some boring style comments: - whack trailing whitespace - spaces, not tabs - the methods in MCJITStreamer.cpp should probably have blank lines between them There seems to be an ownership problem of the MCJITObjectWriter. If I understand the code correctly, the assembler Finish method takes ownership of the Writer parameter, which presumably is needed to JIT two functions. +1 for separate

On 07/19/2010 05:14, Olivier Meurant wrote: > Together with Jan Sjodin (in copy of this email), we begin an > implementation of the JIT with MC. The idea, suggested by Jan, is to > develop a MCJIT in parallel of the current JIT and to keep the two > implementations until (at least) the new MC one is mature enough. > Currently code is kept on gitorious >

> In the context of the JIT, there really is no such thing as a > relocation, just fixups. I'm not completely sure what the right > approach is, but the JIT should be able to fully resolve all of the > symbols that are being used in the module. We may need some extra > interfaces to allow the JIT to tell the MCAssembler about the address > of some external symbols though.

On Jun 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Yuri wrote: > On 07/19/2010 05:14, Olivier Meurant wrote: >> Together with Jan Sjodin (in copy of this email), we begin an >> implementation of the JIT with MC. The idea, suggested by Jan, is to >> develop a MCJIT in parallel of the current JIT and to keep the two >> implementations until (at least) the new MC one is mature enough. >>

I have a question about llvm-mc and allowing inline assembly in the JIT. Is this planned to be implemented in the near future? There seems to have a been a lot more activity integrating llvm-mc lately and I was wondering when this will be completed? Thanks, Jan

What kind of restrictions will the existing object file formats impose on the JIT? I don't know enough about the JIT and object file format interaction to know if this will be an issue. It seems clear that it would be worse to try to encode "extra things" in some obscure way than to create the FOO format initially. If FOO is truly a superset of everything this could even be the

Hi LLVM folks, Attached with this email, you will find a patch not directly applicable (it doesn't compile like this) which (try to) enhance the structure of a possible JIT with the MC framework. Basically : - MCJIT : - Main class implementing ExecutionEngine interface - owns and creates : - a MemoryManager (will be a reuse of the JITMemoryManager mechanism) - a MCJITStreamer

This patch contains the MCJIT unit tests. The goal is once the code has been reviewed we can continue with the integration with lli, but I decided not to add this to the patches yet because the interfaces may change. - Jan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0020_mcjitunittests.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 15056 bytes Desc: not available URL:

On Feb 24, 2011, at 4:05 AM, Jan Sjodin wrote: > On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Yuri wrote: >> >>> On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote: >>>> Will MC path for JNI be included in 2.9? >>>> >>> >>> Sorry. I meant: Will MC path for JIT be included in 2.9? >> >> While it would be nice, it doesn't seem like anyone is working on

----- Original Message ---- > From: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > To: Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 3:26:35 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Announcing: LLVM 2.9 Tentative Release Schedule > > > On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Yuri wrote: > > > On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote: > >>

We are currently using the JIT (non-MC) to implement a REPL-like shell that needs to run in a long-lived process. During development, we noticed substantial memory-growth with increased lifetime of the JIT. In trying to eliminate that continuous memory growth, we did a few things, including making LLVMContext collect and free unused constants (detected by Value::uses_empty()). This dropped

Hello, I'm part of a team at Intel that works on implementing the MC-JIT execution path for ELF objects with built-in support for debugging the JITted code with GDB. We currently have a working implementation passing all ExecutionEngine tests on MC-JIT for ELF, as well as several proprietary workloads. The current implementation focuses on Linux, although with some trivial modifications it