similar to: [LLVMdev] JIT with MC - structure

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

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 =

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]

> 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.

I do have an opinion, but don't have enough time to comment in much depth. The approximate approach I had in mind sounds like what you describe, though, the JITObjectWriter is the core piece, the other pieces probably fall into place as it becomes obvious if they are needed. It should be pretty straightforward to bring up something which works for running code with no external symbols, if you

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

Hi Chris, Thanks for taking time to communicate on this. In your open points, you speak about upgrading the JIT code path. If I want to take a look (or at least try...) on it, what would be the "roadmap" ? I assume, a MCJITStreamer is needed. And probably a JITObjectWriter (inherits from MCObjectWriter) and an associated TargetAsmBackend specific to the JIT (JITX86AsmBackend) ? What

Hi ! > Sorry I missed responding to this email sooner. No problem, I was not in a hurry. :) > The approximate approach I had in mind sounds like what you describe, Ok Cool ! > I have been meaning to do this, but won't have time for a couple weeks I suspect. So I will give it a try. :) I was able to quickly hack a JITObjectWriter and I am able to execute simple functions (with

On Apr 11, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Olivier Meurant wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Thanks for taking time to communicate on this. Sorry I missed responding to this email sooner. > In your open points, you speak about upgrading the JIT code path. If I want to take a look (or at least try...) on it, what would be the "roadmap" ? > > I assume, a MCJITStreamer is needed. > And

Hi, I think I need to make a small change to the MCJit interface, and would like some feedback on what the most appropriate option would be. I'm working on LLILC (a jit for the CoreCLR built on MCJit, which creates one module for each MSIL method, containing the main function and zero or more EH handler functions extracted from the MSIL method). The CoreCLR requires the jit to notify it of

Hi Joseph, There are several reasons that a client might want to access the object before it's loaded, so a general API like #2 seems like the way to go. To support this in MCJIT you can add this to the event listener API. Orc clients can already do this by adding a custom object-file layer. - Lang. On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Joseph Tremoulet <jotrem at microsoft.com> wrote:

Hey Joseph, What Lang said made me wonder. Is it the right time for us (LLILC) to move to ORC? The long term plan was to go there but this could be our forcing function. -R From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Lang Hames Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 2:23 PM To: Joseph Tremoulet Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] MCJit interface

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

Hi all, So I’m also working on LLILC. Specifically, I have been working on a JITEventListener to pass debug line info to the CoreCLR EE. With Joe’s change, I’ve lost the ability (or as far as I can tell) to attach an event listener. Is there a way within Orc to do the sorts of things that the JITEventListeners do in MCJIT? How would I go about adding a layer to add debugging support? Thanks,

Agreed, that sounds like the best plan. I'll look into moving LLILC to ORC. Thanks -Joseph From: Russell Hadley Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 8:13 PM To: Lang Hames; Joseph Tremoulet Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] MCJit interface question Hey Joseph, What Lang said made me wonder. Is it the right time for us (LLILC) to move to ORC? The long term plan was to go there but

When we were using MCJIT, I could do this: // Attach the event listener Context.EE->RegisterJITEventListener( LLILCJitEventListener::createLLILCJitEventListener( new LLILCJitEventWrapper(&Context))); The event listeners listened for when an object is emitted (NotifyObjectEmitted), and that’s when we’d go through and extract debug info from the ObjectFile. Now, I imagine

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

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:39 AM, James Molloy <James.Molloy at arm.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I've been watching the MC-JIT progress for some time, and #2 certainly > looks like the best idea to me. I think however you've missed an important > selling point of the "FOOJIT" architecture: > > * The use of a custom object file format directly enables the use

Hi All, I'm going to be making some API breaking changes to the ORC APIs, and to the RuntimeDyld class (which underlies MCJIT). The changes may affect MCJIT clients but are unlikely to. Where they do the fixes are likely to be trivial. ORC clients will be affected, but the fixes should also be straightforward. I have three upcoming changes in mind: 1) RuntimeDyld (the linker underlying

Hi Lang, thanks for announcing. Would be great if you could send another short notice as soon as the actual patch exists. Best, Stefan Am 24.05.16 um 23:06 schrieb Lang Hames via llvm-dev: > Hi All, > > I'm going to be making some API breaking changes to the ORC APIs, and > to the RuntimeDyld class (which underlies MCJIT). The changes may > affect MCJIT clients but are unlikely