similar to: [LLVMdev] Unsupported MCJIT tests on ARM?

Hi Renato, > /home/user/devel/llvm/src/lib/ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/RuntimeDyldELF.cpp:307: > void llvm::RuntimeDyldELF::resolveARMRelocation(const llvm::SectionEntry&, > uint64_t, uint32_t, uint32_t, int32_t): Assertion `(*TargetPtr & 0x000F0FFF) > == 0' failed. I think there's a discussion going on about this already at

Hi List, I'm trying to upgrade our llvm-c based compiler from JIT to MCJIT. While trying to do so I encountered several problems. Looks like C API does not have proper functions to intialize LLVM with MCJIT. I ended up wrapping the following functions in my own init routine. LLVMInitializeX86TargetInfo(); LLVMInitializeX86Target(); LLVMInitializeX86TargetMC(); LLVMInitializeX86AsmPrinter();

Hi Lang, Yeah, I remember this case. Basically what’s happening is that there are relocations for ELF on x86 that use a value that is present in the object image as part of the calculation for the final value that goes in the same location. If you ever find yourself applying relocations for a second time (for instance, because the loaded object location is remapped for out-of-proc execution)

I managed to make it work by cloning code from lli and making my own cpp wrapper. 2013/9/22 Konstantin Olkhovskiy <lupus at oxnull.net> > Hi List, > > I'm trying to upgrade our llvm-c based compiler from JIT to MCJIT. > While trying to do so I encountered several problems. Looks like C > API does not have proper functions to intialize LLVM with MCJIT. > I ended up

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:

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

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 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

Hi LLVMDev list I am building LLVM from the SVN trunk at 213638 on a W7/X86_64/Cygwin system and running make check leads to a series of failed assertions like ******************** FAIL: LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-setcond-fp.ll (6185 of 11245) ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-setcond-fp.ll' FAILED ******************** Script: --

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:

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

Hi Lang Le 24/07/2014 18:17, Lang Hames a écrit : > Hi Francis, > > It is possible to XFAIL a regression test (grep for XFAIL in the > llvm/test directory for examples), however that's discouraged. The > fact that this test is failing indicates that part of the JIT > infrastructure is broken on W7/X86_64/Cygwin. > > How long have you been building LLVM in this

On 18 May 2013 09:56, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > According to Amara that assertion was a bit of paranoia so we'd know > if someone tried emitting .rel relocations and sending the result > through MCJIT. However, now we routinely re-relocate using explicit > addends so as he says it can probably just be removed. > Hi Tim, Sorry, I saw that thread

Thanks for reply, it was really helpful. Can u just be more specific and tell about processRelocationRef() and resolveRelocation() in Targets/RuntimeDyld(objectfile format)(arch).h and also in RuntimeDyldELF.cpp and how the same function is implemented in different ways in both the files ? Thanks, Siddharth On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 8:16 PM, mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote:

Hi, Attempting to use LLVM in jitting mode for AMD64, we met a problem. When the jitted routine needs a big stack frame (> 1 page), the system attempts to call __chkstk to probe the stack. This attempt results in assertion in RuntimeDyldELF::resolveX86_64Relocation(), case ELF::R_X86_64_PC32, because the RealOffset does not fit in 32 bits. Same happens with __alloca (when

Thanks. I am just trying to find a relocation and linking design for Hexagon architecture, whether to follow the MIPS style of relocation or other architecture style of relocation. Thats my question . Thats why i was asking about the functions and their differences Please guide. Thanks, Siddharth On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:37 PM, mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote: > If

Hi, We are seeing sporadic crashes since we migrated to MCJIT on Win64. The same tests pass without issues on Mac64 and Linux64. The issue is this assertion failure in RuntimeDyldELF.c: RealOffset <= INT32_MAX && RealOffset >= INT32_MIN I haven't managed to successfully catch the failure in Visual to try and debug it. Any tips on how to make progress? Oh, and we're on

Without the MSP_32BIT part, I consistently hit this assertion: Assertion failed: ((Type == ELF::R_X86_64_32 && (Value <= UINT32_MAX)) || (Type == ELF::R_X86_64_32S && ((int64_t)Value <= INT32_MAX && (int64_t)Value >= INT32_MIN))), function resolveX86_64Relocation, file ../lib/ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/RuntimeDyldELF.cpp, line 222. David On 9 May 2013, at

Hello everyone, As part of my quest to add TLS relocation support to MCJIT, I've been taking a closer look at the GOT implementation in RuntimeDyldELF and I believe that is not valid as currently implemented. In particular, I am wondering about the multiple GOT handling support introduced in r192020. If I understand correctly this can make code reuse the GOT table entry in a different object

Hi, Can anyone explain in lib/ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/Targets/ the header files included for different architectures like RuntimeDyldCOFFX86_64.h or RuntimeDyldCOFFI386.h etc, what is the connection of these files for relocation and linking as the linking and relocation for diff architecture is done in RuntimeDyldELF.cpp, RuntimeDyldCOFF.cpp and it doesn't use any function from these