similar to: [LLVMdev] Why gdb can't determine stack of code run in JIT?

I know you haven't been able to get the JIT gdb support to work on FreeBSD (right?), but this is exactly the problem that we ran into that it solves. http://llvm.org/docs/DebuggingJITedCode.html I don't know what heuristic gdb is trying to use to unwind the stack, but it doesn't work. I asked a gdb developer about it two summers ago when I was working on this, but he seemed

When gdb is stopped in a function with no known start address, it has to make a guess about how to get the caller's rip. Either we assume that the saved rip is at rsp+8, or we assume that the saved rip is found via the rbp register. But it's a guess either way - gdb can't find the start of the function so it can't know which is the correct method. It would be nice if it could

Since updating to LLVM 3.3, the system is generating attributes such as: attributes #0 = { nounwind "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="true" "no-frame-pointer-elim-non-leaf"="true" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "unsafe-fp-math"="false"

Hi - attached is a patch to enable building DragonEgg (x86_64) for LLVM3.3 and LLVM3.4. That is, add these changes to the 3.3 release, and it becomes possible to build DragonEgg against a llvm3.4 compiler. Regards, Richard Gorton Cognitive Electronics rcgorton at cog-e.com ---------- -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name:

Hi, Our DSL LLVM IR emitted code (optimized with -O3 kind of IR ==> IR passes) runs slower when executed with the LLVM 3.3 JIT, compared to what we had with LLVM 3.1. What could be the reason? I tried to play with TargetOptions without any success… Here is the kind of code we use to allocate the JIT: EngineBuilder builder(fResult->fModule);

Hello, We have been investigating a crash in our application that may be related to how stack frames are generated by the JIT. We observe it with LLVM 2.9, but not with LLVM 2.8, everything else being the same. The crash occurs when dynamically generated code calls code that tries to unwind the stack. Here is what the stack trace looks like on MacOSX 10.6 : 0 libSystem.B.dylib

This may be bogus, but do you have: llvm::JITExceptionHandling = true; for the code that generates the dynamic code? It has been a while, but I don't recall what will happen when dynamic code, generated with jit exception handling turned off, invokes libraries which in turn try to unwind the stack via the libunwind api. However given that you say the code works with 2.8, my concern

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Stéphane Letz <letz at grame.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > Our DSL LLVM IR emitted code (optimized with -O3 kind of IR ==> IR passes) runs slower when executed with the LLVM 3.3 JIT, compared to what we had with LLVM 3.1. What could be the reason? > > I tried to play with TargetOptions without any success… > > Here is the kind of code we use to

Hi, I am trying to implement a scenario similar to running ExceptionDemo.cpp with parameter -1 (where the JITed code calls the C++ function which throws an exception) Different from the given example I am using IRParser instead of IRBuilder. I can successfully catch the exception in Linux but the program crashes in Mac and Windows. The code is similar to as follows: ### The test.cpp :

Le 18 juil. 2013 à 19:07, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> a écrit : > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Stéphane Letz <letz at grame.fr> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Our DSL LLVM IR emitted code (optimized with -O3 kind of IR ==> IR passes) runs slower when executed with the LLVM 3.3 JIT, compared to what we had with LLVM 3.1. What could be the reason? >>

Hey guys, Is there a way to force the LLVM JIT compiler to omit the frame pointer in its generated i386/amd64 code? I've got a complex situation in which the stack can potentially be moved around so I'd prefer that the base pointer doesn't get pushed there. Félix

I have this problem: google-perftools fails to detect stack for the code run under JIT called through C++ api from my program. It shows in profile like all program is one block with the name _init. I clearly do set the option NoFramePointerElim and I do see how it makes a difference in stack frame under gdb. When running some code in JIT in lli (with option -disable-fp-elim) google perftools

> exactly Well, in general, there is no connection between the performance on x86 and on ARM. You can try to profile your code and find what causes the speedup on x86 and figure out the slowdowns on ARM. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

I understand you to mean that you have isolated the actual execution time as your point of comparison, as opposed to including runtime loading and so on. Is this correct? One thing that changed between 3.1 and 3.3 is that MCJIT no longer compiles the module during the engine creation process but instead waits until either a function pointer is requested or finalizeObject is called. I would

Hello, I am using Ubuntu 11.10 64-bit. Following the instructions on the VMKit website I grabbed llvm, clang, and vmkit via svn (and GNU Classpath via the link of the page). Compilation of llvm, clang and classpath went fine. I had problems compiling vmkit, which seem to be related to a TargetOptions being required as a parameter when creating a TargetMachine in LLVM. This led to a couple other

I am debugging the memory issue that manifests itself like this: *** glibc detected *** ../app/app.OWS: free(): invalid pointer: 0x0ad391fc *** ======= Backtrace: ========= /lib/libc.so.6(+0x6c501)[0x4f6501] /lib/libc.so.6(+0x6dd70)[0x4f7d70] /lib/libc.so.6(cfree+0x6d)[0x4fae5d] ../app/app.OWS(_ZNSt8_Rb_treeIjjSt9_IdentityIjESt4lessIjESaIjEE5eraseESt17_Rb_tree_iteratorIjES7_+0x4b)[0x83de6eb]

Hi Sanjay, Thanks, I saw this flag and it's definitely should be considered, but it appeared to me to be static characteristic of target platform. I'm not sure how appropriate it would be to change its value from a front-end. It says "Has", while optional flag would rather say "Uses" meaning that implementation cares about floating point exceptions. Regards, Sergey

Hi again, It's partially done. My concern is that it won't be accepted as is because of adding the flag parameter in a lot of places. I'd like to show what it looks like (here, not on llvm-commit yet), maybe someone could suggest a better way. There are two sources of the flag: field of TargetOptions and function attribute. I had to add the later one for InstCombine pass. Still