similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm-clang jit module running into unresolved functions

Hi Bjoern, I'm trying to make exceptions run. I have an Object file with a function, > throwing a 1 and a second function which should catch the 1. Normal JITTING > under Windows showed me, that I have an unresolved reference to the virtual > table of type_info. Some experiments later I was able to load "msvcrt.lib" > as an archive and could resolve the reference. Nice -

I'm catching up on this. Does this mean LLVM x64 JITTed code is not exception friendly or you can't catch exceptions inside LLVM JITTed code. The first one seems to indicate that the code is not ABI friendly or that not enough information is present to notify Windows of unwind tables. I'll ask the question another way: Does LLVM emit enough information so that RtlAddFunctionTable can

> I tried loading the "msvcrt.lib" as a archive. That was... a bad idea! > I get a Exception while loading: > Assertion failed: ((int64_t)Result <= INT32_MAX) && "Relocation > overflow", file > \lib\executionengine\runtimedyld\Targets/RuntimeDyldCOFFX86_64.h, line 81 It's a limitation of the COFF/PE format and unrelated to exceptions. This patch

My project has a C++ library that I want to allow the user to use via some programming language to be JIT'd to call functions in said library. For the sake of simplicity, assume the library has classes like: class item { public: item(); item( int ); ~item(); // ... }; class item_iterator { public: virtual ~item_iterator(); virtual bool next( item *result ) = 0; };

That's encouraging. Assuming that all access to the JITted code is going to be done through a function pointer, and all JIT code is ephemeral, why is the object container format important? In fact, why is it even needed? I found it somewhat odd that MCJIT generates an object file for even the JIT case. To answer my own question, could it be that advanced JIT's may need/want to use things

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote: >> 2) Can I easily debug JIT'd code with LLDB? > > Are you running JIT'd code within another process that can be debugged (i.e. the simulation binary)? If so, you might want to have LLVM generate a full blown dylib, not just a JIT'd chunk of code and load the dylib using the standard shared

Wouldn't it mean each time a function is compiled it would need to be bundled to its own dylib? How well would that scale? Félix Le 2010-07-07 à 15:41:18, Reid Kleckner a écrit : > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote: >>> 2) Can I easily debug JIT'd code with LLDB? >> >> Are you running JIT'd code within another

I'm sorry but I don't think I understand the question. But if you can't produce a pdb using MSVC, it is hard to imagine that only lld can do, unless MSVC linker has a bug. On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:07 PM Vivien Millet <vivien.millet at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, thanks for the answers, i tried to use LINK.EXE to produce a pdb, but > unfortunately, it produces an empty pdb

Hello, Am I right in thinking that MCJIT doesn't support thread-local variables (at least not on Linux x86-64)? Is there any plan or pending PR to support it (either in MCJIT or in ORC)? Thank you, Regards Antoine.

Thank you Alex, I went and implemented a solution along those lines. It works well. It may be worth mentioning static constructors in the Kaleidoscope tutorial. Cheers, Daniele ________________________________________ From: Alex Denisov [1101.debian at gmail.com] Sent: 15 March 2019 08:07 To: Daniele Vettorel Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Static constructors with ORC

Hello Stefan, I'm happy someone replied to my problem! Many thanks! To be honest... I didn't understood much of your mail. I'm a beginner with the JIT - so I will explain what I've done. To manage the memory and resolve symbols, I'm using my own Resolver-Class, which overloads the allocation and the findSymbol functions. I've noticed today, that the

Hi Christian Your use case seems to have similar requirements as remote JITing in ORC. So far I haven't used that part myself and I am sure Lang can tell you much more about it. However, this comment on the RemoteObjectClientLayer class sounds promising for your questions (1) and (2): /// Sending relocatable objects to the server (rather than fully relocated /// bits) allows JIT'd code

Hmm, I'm confused. The DSO is compiled with gcc. Do I need to compile it with clang instead? I don't believe the JITted code uses the thread support library directly, although I suppose it may be hidden with templates and/or inline functions... On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:43 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Geoff, > > If you want to access the variable

Is it possible to write a .pdb file containing the debug info stored in a COFFObjectFile once the NotifyObjectEmitted is triggered by the JIT compiler ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180308/3c25cddd/attachment.html>

> > 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. > > Thanks for suggestion. Unfortunately, I can't check it now as MCJIT

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:00 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Vivien, > > I'm not familiar with Windows development, but I believe you could dump > the object file to disk then run LINK.EXE to produce the PDB. > Alternatively, I think LLD can also produce PDB files (Rui -- is that > right?), in which case you may be able to use that. > Yes, lld can

My understanding is that the JIT system allows during the running of the system resolution of call instructions to undefined functions to be trapped and then patched with the correct address (is this true?). The question I have is does the current system also allow for repatching? for a certain OO system I am working on this could be desirable when an object/class is updated and replaced- making

Hi All, Just a couple of updates this week: First: there is a preview patch up at https://reviews.llvm.org/D75838 to enable use of JITEventListeners in RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer. I've only done very preliminary testing on it, but was able to debug simple JIT'd programs on Linux using the GDB registration listener. If you've been wanting to move to ORC but held up by lack of debugger /

> On 13 Feb 2018, at 17:42, Stanislav Pankevich <s.pankevich at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:18 PM, David Chisnall > <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> On 12 Feb 2018, at 22:31, Stanislav Pankevich via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> Specifically I explored the latest objc4-723 >>>

Hi Yafei, As david told, you can make the symbols of your host process visible to the JIT'd code through DynamicLibrarySearchGenerator::getForCurrentProcess. On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 00:46, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > +Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> , JITer of JITs. > > I believe there's some kind of resolver you can add that