similar to: [LLVMdev] Calling PassManager on previously JITed Modules

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

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

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

*Project Description:* * * LLVM has gained much popularity in the programming languages and compiler industry from the time it is developed. Lots of researchers have used LLVM as frameworks for their researches and many languages have been ported to LLVM IR and interpreted, Just-in-Time compiled or statically compiled to native code. One of the current drawbacks of the LLVM JIT is the lack of an

Hi I’ve previously used the ExecutionEngine::addGlobalMapping to make existing functions available to my JITed code. I’m currently using ORC, as MCJIT does not appear to be maintained any longer (the kaleidoscope examples have not worked for some time with MCJIT). I’m using just the basic ORC CompileLayer directly. So, I’ve essentially copied the ExecutionEngine::addGlobalMapping related

Hi Andy, I haven't tested this on Linux, but on MacOS the RuntimeDyldMemorManager::getSymbolAddressInProcess method should find symbol addresses in the host program, including symbols from static archives linked into the program. However, one gotcha is that the symbol has to be reachable from main, otherwise the linker may strip it from the final executable. Do you have a test-case that I

Hi Andy, I think that makes sense. I'm currently rewriting the core Kaleidoscope tutorials - I'll look at adding support for this. - Lang. On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Andy Somogyi <andy.somogyi at gmail.com> wrote: > After some fiddling with it, it does in fact look like it works as you > describe Lang. > > The trick was you had to call > >

Lang, I added the add/get global mapping to my kaleidoscope JIT, but I think perhaps these would make more sense if they were added to the object linking layer as they would be generally usable there. On Aug 19, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Andy Somogyi wrote: > Hey Lang, > > I've added this to my Kaleidoscope JIT, and it seems to work just fine, basically I copied the global mapping

> On 2014 Dec 10, at 14:08, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:21:08AM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> >>> On 2014 Dec 10, at 08:40, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:22:16PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >>>> The `Metadata`/`Value`

Hi everyone, I am writing an application that uses LLVM JIT and I would like to throw an exception from the JIT and catch it in the C++ code that invokes the JIT. This does not seem to work. I've written what is hopefully a super simple demonstration to reproduce this. I would appreciate any help with this. Thank you The demonstration is composed of: 1) thrower.cpp - a source file that

On 29 March 2011 12:35, Xin Tong Utoronto <x.tong at utoronto.ca> wrote: > *Project Description:* > > * > * > > LLVM has gained much popularity in the programming languages and compiler > industry from the time it is developed. Lots of researchers have used LLVM > as frameworks for their researches and many languages have been ported to > LLVM IR and interpreted,

Hi all, (thanks to Reid, who gave nice advice) the fibonacci function code works now. Please find attached file. but... the performance is adequate, say, for byte-code interpretation mode and not for optimized JITing. fibonacci function of 35 from attached file is more then 100 times slower then the following code compiled with "gcc -O2" : ----------- #include <iostream> int

I am seeing the following assertion in leak detector. /llvm/lib/VMCore/LeakDetector.cpp:43: void<unnamed>::LeakDetectorImpl<T>::addGarbage(const T*) [with T = void]: Assertion `Ts.count(Cache) == 0 && "Object already in set!"' failed. I am creating a list of instructions using BuildMI() and adding them to a basic block using BB->insert(). I am seeing this

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > (thanks to Reid, who gave nice advice) the fibonacci function code > works now. Please find attached file. > > but... the performance is adequate, say, for byte-code > interpretation mode and not for optimized JITing. > fibonacci function of 35 from attached file is more > then 100 times slower then the following code compiled

Hi Tobias, > The following expression e.g. > > /^.*(?<!trunk|RELEASE_2.).$/m > > uses lookbehind to matches on: Thanks. Clever trick, but... Variable length lookbehind not implemented in regex m/^.*(?<!trunk|RELEASE_2.).$/ at /usr/lib/git-core/git-svn line 4078. :( -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State

Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes: > On Dec 6, 2010, at 9:31 AM, David Greene wrote: > > Is there a reason there is no RELEASE_28 tag for test-suite? > > SVN wouldn't allow me to make one. So getting the latest release_28 branch should be equivalent, yes? I just want to make sure we have a way to test 2.8 long-term. -Dave

On 03/07/2011 08:30 PM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hi David > >> I think the trouble with branches is the lockdown of the root repository >> directory. > Surely not (at the server) > >> git svn init --stdlayout https://<user>@llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm \ >>

Hi David > I think the trouble with branches is the lockdown of the root repository > directory. Surely not (at the server) > git svn init --stdlayout https://<user>@llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm \ >

Is there a reason there is no RELEASE_28 tag for test-suite? -Dave

I.e., I see this when I run `git fetch`: ``` $ git fetch -v llvm.org From http://llvm.org/git/llvm = [up to date] master -> llvm.org/master = [up to date] release_1 -> llvm.org/release_1 = [up to date] release_16 -> llvm.org/release_16 = [up to date] release_20 -> llvm.org/release_20 = [up to date] release_21 -> llvm.org/release_21 = [up to date]