similar to: [LLVMdev] ExecutionEngine fails to use MCJIT, non-unique static member variables

Duh. Nevermind. MCJIT::Register is called from the main application while libcling is a shared lib that links to the static llvm libs, thus having its own static variables...

I see very strange behaviour. I am linking to LLVMMCJIT and I #include MCJIT.h. I can see in the debugger that MCJIT::Register is being called. If I break in ExecutionEngine::create, I can see that UseMCJIT is true and ExecutionEngine::MCJITCtor is non-zero. Still at this point (lines after 481): if (UseMCJIT && ExecutionEngine::MCJITCtor) { ExecutionEngine *EE =

Greetings, I have a simple C++ EDSL working using the JIT execution engine. When I upgraded to LLVM 3.2 (effortless upgrade, awesome stuff!) I thought I would try taking the MCJIT for a spin after having read that the JIT is considered to be "legacy". So the changes I made to my code were: + #include <llvm/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT.h> - #include <llvm/ExecutionEngine/JIT.h> +

Hi Alexey, I think the most likely way to resolve this is to have the RecordingMemoryManager do something more complex to manage its allocations in such a way as to guarantee that they are all within proximity of one another. The code that is asserting is handling a relocation where code was generated to use a 32-bit relative offset in 64-bit code. If the two sections involved really are more

Yes, at some point we definitely should introduce stubs as a last resort for x86-64 relocations when the sections are too far apart, but I'd like to avoid it whenever possible. What I meant in my previous message was that I'd have RecordingMemoryManager use something other than malloc (such as the memory API used by SectionMemoryManager) to keep section near one another. -Andy From:

It's probably best to open a bug. -Andy From: Alexey Samsonov [mailto:samsonov at google.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:27 AM To: Kaylor, Andrew Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: Assertions in RuntimeDyldELF in ExecutionEngine/MCJIT tests On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com<mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>> wrote:

Hi everyone, In llvm 4.0 the MCJIT::getFunctionAddress function return 0 (a null address) when the symbol is not found : *uint64_t MCJIT::getSymbolAddress(const std::string &Name, bool CheckFunctionsOnly) { std::string MangledName; { raw_string_ostream MangledNameStream(MangledName); Mangler::getNameWithPrefix(MangledNameStream, Name, getDataLayout()); } return

Another question: Lang, when do you think it'll be ok to move it to the C Bindings? On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > I agree. ExecutionEngine, in its current form, is unhelpful. I'd be in > favor of cutting the common interface back to something like: > > class ExecutionEngine { > public: > virtual

Hi! I'm trying to run LLVM test suite under AddressSanitizer and get test failures in: LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/simpletest-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-data-align-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-fp-no-external-funcs-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-global-init-nonzero-remote.ll All of them fail with assertion: lli:

Hi Andrew, Looks like RecordingMemoryManager in lli just calls malloc() and it would be strange to make assumptions (or enforce) that the difference between two returned pointers in 64-bit virtual address space will be fit into 32 bits. Can we do smth similar to what Adhemerval proposed (see the special case in processRelocationRef for ELF::R_PPC64_REL24 relocations)? On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>wrote: > Yes, at some point we definitely should introduce stubs as a last resort > for x86-64 relocations when the sections are too far apart, but I’d like to > avoid it whenever possible.**** > > ** ** > > What I meant in my previous message was that I’d have > RecordingMemoryManager use

Hello everyone, I need some advises about (re)using ExecutionEngine with MCJIT as a driver. I'm developing a service that receives a piece of high-level code, compiles it into LLVM IR function "main" and uses MCJIT to execute the function. It can happen that the same piece of code is sent to the service many times. I would like to cache the results (keep generated machine code

Hi, I think ExecutionEngine as a common interface for both Interpreter and MCJIT is almost useless in the current form. There are separated methods in ExecutionEngine for similar or the same features provided by Interpreter and MCJIT, i.e. to get a pointer to function you should call getPointerToFunction() for Interpreter or getFunctionAddress() for MCJIT. Personally, I'm using MCJIT and

>Since MCJIT works on x86, please don't remove it from the supported >platforms list. One downside of using the macro trick is that the test names >are still printed even when they are disabled. It sounds like you need to >modify the macro to also check for the target triple as well... This was just a temporary change to see how it works. >There isn't anything in MCJIT as

Thanks Dan! The ArchSupportMCJIT() functions in unittests/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/MCJITTestBase.h uses "Host Triple" to check for compatibility. Since we cross-compile on X86, "Host Triple" for us will be "X86" which is a supported architecture. I tried removing it from the supported arch list but didn't see any effect. I was just wondering if these tests are

Hi Jyotsna, Currently there's a preprocessor trick that prevents llvm/unittests/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT tests from running on architectures and operating systems that are known to fail. Specifically, check out the functions OSSupportsMCJIT() and ArchSupportsMCJIT() functions in unittests/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/MCJITTestBase.h, and the corresponding macro SKIP_UNSUPPORTED_PLATFORM that is used

On 2013-03-12 1:28 AM, "Jyotsna Verma" <jverma at codeaurora.org> wrote: >Thanks Dan! > >The ArchSupportMCJIT() functions in >unittests/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/MCJITTestBase.h uses "Host Triple" to >check >for compatibility. Since we cross-compile on X86, "Host Triple" for us >will >be "X86" which is a supported architecture. I

Hi, I've got the same 4 unexpected passing tests on the AArch64 buildbot. I checked the buildbot logs and before these tests started to fail all MCJIT tests were unsupported. I think that maybe this commit - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?revision=193459&view=revision <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?revision=193459&view=revision> caused the issue but I'm still

Hi Takumi, I'm a bit confused as to what is supposed to happen in the cross building scenarios. For instance, if host=x86_64-linux and target=i686-mingw32, what should the MCJIT tests do? Should they be suppressed because the architectures don't match? If so, what about the case where host=x86_64-linux and target=x86_64-mingw32? I'm modifying the MCJIT tests so that they will

Hi Lang, I am on Ubuntu 14.04. I am building ToT: llvm, clang, polly, lld, compiler-rt, libcxx, libcxxabi. The build compiler is: clang+llvm-3.7.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-14.04 The failures show up during "make check-all". My cmake command was: cmake -G 'Unix Makefiles' -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/w/c/org -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD:STRING=all