similar to: [LLVMdev] Debug information and JIT

Hi Paweł, > I have a problem that was reported some time ago but never received > any solution. probably the reason that there is no action is surely that the old JIT implementation is being replaced with the new MCJIT implementation, so no-one feels very motivated to fix the old JIT since it is going away. Try passing -use-mcjit to lli. Ciao, Duncan. > See >

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Paweł, >> I have a problem that was reported some time ago but never received >> any solution. > > probably the reason that there is no action is surely that the old JIT > implementation is being replaced with the new MCJIT implementation, so > no-one feels very motivated to fix the old

Thanks! Currently using MCJIT. But migration to ORC is on my TODO list. - Paweł On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:30 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > Option (1) and (3) are very similar, but using custom resolution (option > 3) guarantees that JIT'd code can't accidentally end up depending on > functions in your JIT that you didn't mean to

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

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 LLVM, Lang. I'm looking for a advice here. And I truly understand very little what the relocations are and how they work. The problem I want to solve is the case where a jitted code has to call back the host application to query additional data. I can think of 3 possible solutions: 1. Use built-in relocation resolver (in default memory manager?) and allow the JIT to find the

ping From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Kaylor, Andrew Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:10 AM To: Jim Grosbach; Pawel Bylica; Chris Lattner Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu (LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu) Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: MCJIT enhancements Has anything more happened with this? -Andy From: Jim Grosbach [mailto:grosbach at apple.com] Sent:

On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Paweł Bylica <pawel.bylica at ibs.org.pl> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Paweł, > > > > Thanks for continuing this discussion. > > > > I like the simplicity of your suggestion. My only concern involves the ambiguity of what is meant by “environment”.

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > To: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:45:11 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Problems with instruction scheduling > > > > Any comments? Not in particular, but I think we're pretty close to applying a rewrite by Jonas Paulsson

On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > Chris, are you OK with the below changes to the Triple? If at all possible, I'd like to keep the triple changes separate (separate patch series and separate discussion) from the other MCJIT changes. How dependent are the MCJIT improvements on the Triple changes? As you've noticed, Triple is not a

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Jonas Paulsson" <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:19:14 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Problems with instruction scheduling > >

Has anything more happened with this? -Andy From: Jim Grosbach [mailto:grosbach at apple.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 7:51 AM To: Paweł Bylica; Chris Lattner Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu (LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu); Kaylor, Andrew Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: MCJIT enhancements On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Paweł Bylica <pawel.bylica at ibs.org.pl<mailto:pawel.bylica at ibs.org.pl>>

Chris, are you OK with the below changes to the Triple? -Jim On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:21 PM, "Kaylor, Andrew" <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > ping > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Kaylor, Andrew > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:10 AM > To: Jim Grosbach; Pawel Bylica; Chris Lattner > Cc: llvmdev

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Cooper" <peter_cooper at apple.com> > To: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 12:08:37 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] extractelement causes memory access violation - what

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Cooper" <peter_cooper at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 6:42:41 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] extractelement causes memory access violation - what to

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:30 PM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:55 PM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> > wrote: > > > > Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> writes: > > > I can confirm that the issue has been caused by NDEBUG flag. >

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:03 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > > To: "David Majnemer" <david.majnemer at gmail.com> > > Cc: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 5:42:24 AM > > Subject: Re:

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:55 PM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> writes: > > I can confirm that the issue has been caused by NDEBUG flag. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:29 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > > > The layout of AssertingVH has depended on NDEBUG since 2009,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Majnemer" <david.majnemer at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Pete Cooper" <peter_cooper at apple.com>, "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 7:17:19 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] extractelement causes memory access violation