similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 82, Issue 7

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,

*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

I understand that we need to push the address to a register then branch using the register. But i am asking why there is a trampoline there such that a call to foo is first branched to an snippet and the snippet branches to the X86CompilationCallback. is this snippet necessary ? Thanks Xin On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com>wrote: > The

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com>wrote: > > > > Project Outline: > > > > > > > > Currently, the LLVM JIT serves as a management layer for the executed > LLVM IR, it manages the compiled code and calls the LLVM code generator to > do the real work. There are levels of optimizations for the LLVM code >

The address of the callee may be more than 2 GB away in memory, which cannot be encoded as an immediate offset in the call instruction. So, the value is first materialized with a mov instruction which can encode the immediate and then jumped to through a register. Reid On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Xin Tong Utoronto <x.tong at utoronto.ca> wrote: > I have a question on the LLVM JIT

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 1, 2011, at 9:38 AM, Reid Kleckner wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Then we would always have the location of the br B instruction in A, as > it is pushed

Do any of you have an idea as to what the Compilation Time vs Execution Time looks like in LLVM JIT with most aggressive optimizations on. Is adaptive compilation going to bring any benefits to the LLVM JIT ? -- Kind Regards Xin Tong -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Apr 3, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Xin Tong Utoronto wrote: > Another way to do the patching is to first atomically inserted a self-loop jump -2 atomically (jump -2 takes 2 bytes and 2 bytes writing is atomic on x86 ) into the old branch address on x86 such that it stops all threads reaching this point. copy in the new compiled function address. and then re-patch the jump -2 with the correct

> > Project Outline: > > > > Currently, the LLVM JIT serves as a management layer for the executed LLVM IR, it manages the compiled code and calls the LLVM code generator to do the real work. There are levels of optimizations for the LLVM code generator, and depends on how much optimizations the code generator is asked to do, the time taken may vary significantly. The

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com>wrote: > > > >> So, one way that current projects use the JIT is via > getPointerToFunction() which returns an address that can then be casted and > called with the appropriate arguments. The compile task itself is often done > on a separate thread. How would you deal with the updating problem

I have a question on the LLVM JIT I did some brief memory reading one day and I found that a call to a non-library function is resolved by the X86CompilationCallback, but the X86CompilationCallback is reached through a trampoline. why can not the generated code jump to the X86CompilationCallback function directly ? 0x2b0a6a4d103b: mov $0x2b0a6a561010,%rax 0x2b0a6a4d1045:

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Xin Tong Utoronto <x.tong at utoronto.ca>wrote: > How do I submit my GSOC proposal to the llvmdev mailing list ? > Posting your proposal to the mailing list is just to get feedback *before* submitting it (which is very much recommended). To actually submit your proposal, you need to register on the Google Summer of Code website and submit it there.

On 24 June 2011 21:13, Xin Tong Utoronto <x.tong at utoronto.ca> wrote: > I would like to know the status of the autovectorization support in LLVM. >  does LLVM have a loop dependence analysis, does LLVM have a infrastructure > for autovectorization ? etc. Not yet, but it's getting there... http://polly.grosser.es/ cheers, --renato

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

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

> >> So, one way that current projects use the JIT is via getPointerToFunction() which returns an address that can then be casted and called with the appropriate arguments. The compile task itself is often done on a separate thread. How would you deal with the updating problem in the calling application? What sort of use cases for the JIT have you looked at so far? >> > I

I would like to know the status of the autovectorization support in LLVM. does LLVM have a loop dependence analysis, does LLVM have a infrastructure for autovectorization ? etc. Kind Regards Xin Tong -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110624/3dc35318/attachment.html>

can we get a confirmation on who is coming tomorrow ? Thanks Xin 2012/2/24 Andrew Clinton <andrew at sidefx.com>: > It would be fun to meet some other LLVM developers in TO, 7:00 on wed at > beer bistro should work for me. > > Andrew > > > On 02/24/2012 05:22 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >> >> 2012/2/24 Xin Tong<xerox.time.tech at gmail.com>:

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com>wrote: > > > > > > No we will always have control over where the parent calls the functions > that we are recompiling. As explained in the example below > > > > Original Code > > > > Binary for A: Binary for B: > > > > ... ...

2012/2/24 Xin Tong <xerox.time.tech at gmail.com>: > Hopefully you mean sometime in the evening on 29th. If this is the > case, count me in. Good point, I forgot to select a time :-) What about 19:00? > Thanks Cheers, Rafael