similar to: [LLVMdev] MCJIT vs JT

Hi, I am quite new to LLVM. I just compiled LLVM and clang on Ubuntu11.10 then followed the tutorial http://llvm.org/docs/DebuggingJITedCode.html clang -cc1 -O0 -g -emit-llvm showdebug.c where showdebug.c contains: #include<stdio.h> int main() { printf("hello\n"); return 0; } But I got Fatal error: 'stdio.h' file not found. However, clang showdebug.c has no

Dear Zhang, Compiler ends up invoking cc1 (the backend) anyways. So if you would like to invoke it by hand, the only thing to know is the right combination of options. Try to use the compiler verbose option "-v". It will show you how exactly clang invokes the backend: > clang -v -c showdebug.c clang version 3.2 (trunk 156703) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Xinglin Zhang <xinglinzh at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I am quite new to LLVM. I just compiled LLVM and clang on Ubuntu11.10 then > followed the tutorial http://llvm.org/docs/DebuggingJITedCode.html > > clang -cc1 -O0 -g -emit-llvm showdebug.c > > > where showdebug.c contains: > > #include<stdio.h> > int main() >

With the following call: llvm::ExecutionEngine* engine; llvm::EngineBuilder builder( module ); builder.setEngineKind( llvm::EngineKind::Either ); // it will use JIT if available builder.setUseMCJIT ( true ); engine = builder.create(); These calls are successful in windows. But when I try in Linux (Ubuntu), the create() function fails with the error message: Target does not support MC emission

I found the following problem when I try to debug "target does not support mc emission" in linux (the same code executes OK in windows): Below is a snippet extracted from this method, if (UseMCJIT && ExecutionEngine::MCJITCtor) { ExecutionEngine *EE = ExecutionEngine::MCJITCtor(M, ErrorStr, JMM, OptLevel,

Is the MCJIT infrastructure supported on Windows? I'm getting an "LLVM ERROR: Incompatible object format!" when running my project with both VS 2013 and Mingw_w64 (GCC 4.8.2). Looks like this issue has been brought up before [1,2] and the answer is "almost". Any help would be greatly appreciated. v/r, Josh [1]

Bingo, thanks! Confirmed it works for both 32- and 64-bit targets. Should `sys::getProcessTriple()` be updated with this change? According to the documentation: /// getProcessTriple() - Return an appropriate target triple for generating /// code to be loaded into the current process, e.g. when using the JIT. I had to "-elf" to the result of this function for JIT to work on

As Yaron said, you need to add "-elf" to the end of your target triple to get MCJIT to generate ELF object in memory on Windows. This should work with 32- or 64-bit targets. -Andy From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Joshua Klontz Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 1:18 PM To: Dev Subject: [LLVMdev] MCJIT + Windows = Incompatible

Hi Verena, I think that we can count the number of instructions with "-stats" command line option. As you mentioned, this option uses Statistic class like "STATISTIC(EmittedInsts, "Number of machine instrs printed");" I don't know exactly about parallel code generation environment but this option seems like to work correctly in common case as following. This is

Hi there, I wondered whether anyone could give me any advice about counting assembly instructions when using MCJIT? For performance regression testing I would like to be able to count the number of instructions generated during the jit compilation of a given module. The Statistic class, as far as I understand, cannot collect this data per-module (per-ExecutionEngine/per-MCJIT), and there is

Hello everyone, ...I should have used a different subject line in the first place... I've asked Rafael a question about GlobalAlias handling in LTOModule::parseSymbols, but he seems to be on vacation... Does anyone knows the answer? Thanks a lot! Sergei --- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation > -----Original

Hi, In the process of looking at whether it's reasonable to make ARM use MCJIT by default, I was trying to check that x86-64 uses MCJIT by default (ie, lli doesn't need an explicit -use-mcjit to be passed). However, after instrumenting the constructors for both JIT and MCJIT, either lli doesn't default to using MCJIT on x86-64 or The construction/non-construction of a JIT/MCJIT object

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:42:18AM +0000, Kaylor, Andrew wrote: > It seems to me that MCJIT would be a nice default on the platforms that support it. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of the default behavior being platform dependent. > > Perhaps the biggest obstacle to changing the default is that it would have complicated implications for the automated tests. The testing of

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:42:18AM +0000, Kaylor, Andrew wrote: > It seems to me that MCJIT would be a nice default on the platforms that support it. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of the default behavior being platform dependent. > > Perhaps the biggest obstacle to changing the default is that it would have complicated implications for the automated tests. The testing of

Am 04.06.2013 16:05, schrieb David Tweed: > | I am curious about JMM->invalidInstructionCache(), which I found in > | lli.cpp implementation. lli.cpp contains also call finalizeObject(), I > | just overlooked it. lli.cpp calls finalizeObject(), which calls > | applyPermissions, which in turn calls invalidateInstructionCache. So why > | lli.cpp does call

Hi, I'm finally moving cling to MCJIT - and MCJIT is wonderful! So far I only ran into this issue: $ cat linkonceodr.cxx extern "C" int printf(const char*,...); template <class T> struct StaticStuff { static T s_data; }; template <class T> T StaticStuff<T>::s_data = 42; int compareAddr(int* mcjit); #ifdef BUILD_SHARED int compareAddr(int* mcjit) { if (mcjit

Russell Wallace via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > When writing a JIT compiler using LLVM, as I understand it, you can use two > alternative APIs, MCJIT and Orc. The latter offers lazy compilation. Would > it be accurate to say that if you want eager compilation - always compile > an entire module upfront - you should use MCJIT? +lang. My understanding is that

Right, but is there any known use case where Orc's flexibility allows something to be done that couldn't be with MCJIT, apart from lazy compilation? On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Russell Wallace via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > When writing a JIT compiler using LLVM, as I understand it, you

Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes: > Out of curiosity, I'm replacing the JIT with MCJIT on my compiler. As > all "external" functions are provided by the language's FFI mechanism, > it does > > MyExecutionEngine->DisableSymbolSearching(); > MyExecutionEngine->InstallLazyFunctionCreator(&MyLazyFunctionCreator); > > which works fine

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> +