similar to: [LLVMdev] JIT and libgcc_s.so

Hi James, In that scenario, it would be the responsibility of the client to implement a memory manager for the MCJIT that knows how to import those symbols from the relevant shared library (or resolve them directly to the statically compiled symbols). -Jim On Oct 1, 2012, at 3:09 AM, James Molloy <James.Molloy at arm.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > There are symbols in libgcc (and

So this is likely just an accident rather than on purpose. There's totally room for that to happen, but it'll be the job of the client and not MCJIT itself. Basically whomever should call dlopen if they want to and it's the problem of the client application (which could be lli as the canonical mcjit example) to link in the correct bits. Make sense? If you can see a use case in

Hi Eric, This makes total sense, thanks. One thing though; it seems a lot of functionality is being foisted onto the client. This is all well and good, but it seems that clients are expected to reinvent the wheel quite a bit for no real purpose - an example is the implementation of getPointerToNamedFunction, allocate{Code,Data}Section and invalidateInstructionCache in lli.cpp. Many clients will

> As far as I know, ObjectFile is either COFF, ELF or MachO format, > statically compiled. But the pass manager for applying optimisation > passes works only on llvm-ir. I would not need to apply optimisations on the parts of the program in the object file. These are meant to be optimised beforehand. The only parts I want to run passes on are specific function that I know

This shouldn't be considered our bug (should it?). I'm going to report it to Ubuntu. I will restart my build, but does anyone else see this on Ubuntu 11.04? Note that I have a 32-bit machine with 2 GB of RAM and no swap. $ ld --version GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.21.0.20110327 Copyright 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc. $ uname -a Linux frylock 2.6.38-11-generic #50-Ubuntu

Hello all, little question. Has somebody already compiled samba on SunOS 5.8 because I cannot statically link libgcc libraries. I already tried "gcc -static-libgcc", added "-lgcc_s" to LIBS variable but always the same result. Below resulted compiled binary .. # ldd bin/ntlm_auth libthread.so.1 => /usr/lib/libthread.so.1 libsendfile.so.1 =>

Hi Jan, In gcc for Linux, you have the -rdynamic option that allows an executable to dlsym its symbols. Since llvm use dlsym to find the symbols, you could try with this option. That's what I did. And don't forget to use the C++ name if you compile with C++. Cheers, Nicolas Jan Rehders wrote: > Hi, > > I was able to try this on linux again. Unfortunately it doesn't work

On Tue, 2007-16-01 at 02:50 +0000, Reid Spencer wrote: > > The build instructions provided tell me to build llvm-gcc first from > > the source. > > The source for that tells me to build llvm first from the source. I'm > > not sure where to go from this point. > You should build llvm first, then llvm-gcc. When I build LLVM first, however, I get told that it

Hello LLVM developers, I am developing a small project using LLVM. The objective is to provide dynamic loading via JIT compilation of C++ code contained in a (TS) module. For this reason, I would like to return an explicitly raw void pointer (resembling libdl's `void *dlsym(void *, char const *);` as closely as possible) to the compiled result. The MCJIT class offers the most convenient API

The DynamicLibrary.cpp code is written and I believe it to be complete, but it hasn't been tested much (at all). llvm-ld uses it to load its plug-in optimization module. The implementation will use ltdl library if its available, otherwise it tries to use dlopen/dlsym if they are available, otherwise you get a compile time warning and (void*)0 if you try to look up a symbol. I'm not sure

When testing which “dl library” we must use for dl* symbols, autoconf runs a test similar to: $ cat conftest.c char dlopen (); int main () { return dlopen (); } $ gcc -o conftest $CFLAGS conftest.c [try various -ldl options here] When using ‘CFLAGS="-fsanitize=address"’ this succeeds even if no dl libraries are used at all, since it appears that using this option causes dlopen

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Thanks for that workaround. What I've been doing is copying > /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 over LLVM's copy and rebuilding xgcc. > > A long-term fix for this would be nice. I'm not hitting this, so I'm relying on you guys to figure out what the right solution is. > Why does llvm-gcc build its own libgcc_s.so? Would we have the same

Hi, I have a program that runs when statically compiled using llc and gcc but crashes with a segmentation fault when run with lli. I am trying to debug it with bugpoint and the initial part of bugpoint seems to be suggesting that I am somehow missing the linking with the libraries having dlsym/dlopen although I am passing it to lli : *$ bugpoint -run-jit

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > FYI .. if you want to see how this works, check out > lib/System/DynamicLibrary.cpp and platform versions of it. Is it an option to use this interface now? How does libtool implement dlsym on darwin if not through the obvious interface? Can we just use whatever it uses? -Chris > On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 10:03, Reid Spencer wrote: > >

I've attached a patch which has got JIT compilation working (for me at least!) on Android. It turns out that the problem was a bunch of intrinsic __aeabi* functions which reside in libgcc.a rather than libc.so so are not available unless explicitly linked in, so it's rather similar to the StatSymbols hack. I moved the StatSymbols code into ExecutionEngine.cpp rather than

LLVMers, The 2.4 pre-release is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.4/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. Please do the following: 1) Download/compile llvm source, and either compile llvm-gcc source or use llvm-gcc binary. 2) Run make check, send me the testrun.log 3) Run "make TEST=nightly report" and send me the

Thanks for the reply. On 28 April 2014 20:01, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > The problem with tcmalloc seems like a real problem. I can't think of any > good workarounds. My best worst idea is to try to figure out if malloc is > coming from libc with dlsym and dlopen, and then use that to decide whether > we add these two numbers together. I'm not sure we

On 22 October 2014 19:24, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > I do compiler_rt + libc++abi + libc++ + clang (with a custom ToolChain) testing > of libc++ on bare-metal ARM.... so it is possible. Perhaps you mean to say that > it's not possible to test libunwind on arm-linux when using compiler_rt? Yeah, it's hard and clumsy, not impossible. Basically,

Hello > The bitcode was generated by llvm-gcc v2.6 for Mingw32/x86, which is > available for download at the llvm site. > Please let me know, if i should tell more. Well, the answer is pretty obvious then. These calls are not generated by JIT. They are already in your bitcode - they are generated by llvm-gcc. The purpose of these calls were alreade explained by Eli. You should either

Nick, How exactly do you envision this being done? Looking at the contents of config/darwin.h, I see... /* Support -mmacosx-version-min by supplying different (stub) libgcc_s.dylib libraries to link against, and by not linking against libgcc_s on earlier-than-10.3.9. Note that by default, -lgcc_eh is not linked against! This is because in a future version of Darwin the EH frame