similar to: [LLVMdev] TLS with MCJIT (an experimental patch)

Can you try it without the MAP_32BIT part? It won't be as reliable, but if the memory addresses it is asking for are available it could work. I agree that there are good reasons not to lock in on a single memory address, but I'm curious as to what other obstacles might be lurking behind the ones we know about. If the patch works when memory is loaded below 2GB then it would be possible

Hi, Unfortunately, I can't compile this patch. MAP_32BIT is a Linuxism that doesn't work on FreeBSD (or OS X, or, as far as I can tell, anywhere except Linux). We can consider adding something similar to FreeBSD (although I'm hesitant to encourage anything that increases the determinism of the memory layout of JITed code, for security reasons), but it doesn't seem ideal.

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

Can you elaborate on why MCJIT TLS support needs code in the low 2 GB? What piece of data do you need to be reachable? It sounds like this was discussed on IRC, but I'm curious. Does the MCJIT even have the reachability problems of the old JIT? If you build an object file in memory, presumably you can measure it and then allocate +x memory for it all at once, instead of the old model of

Hi David, I believe that assertion indicates that something didn't get loaded into the lower 2GB of address space. That is, the memory manager isn't allocating memory in that range. I'm sure there must be a way to allocate memory in that range on FreeBSD. The system loader has to do it, right? I just don't know what makes it happen. -Andy -----Original Message----- From: Dr

Hi, Thanks for your ideas. Memory allocation already exceeds 2x64K in the "working" case so it's not the condition of allocating more than 64K. To be sure I had modified SectionMemoryManager::allocateSection to allocate four time the required memory but it did not trigger more crashes.I debugged through the allocation code including the Win32 code and it seems to work well. I have

So it looks like 0x0A3600D1 is a good code address and there's no problem executing the code there, but 0x00BC7680 is a bad data address. Is that correct? If so, this is almost certainly a relocation problem. You just need to find a relocation that writes an entry (probably a relative offset) at 0x0A3600D1+the size of the instruction at that address. BTW, what I said before about not being

Yes, this is correct code address accessing bad data address. However, there is no other relocation before .text or near it. I'll send you the full debug printout, maybe you'll note something. The problem could be result of something else entirely else than the linker such as some library initialization code that by chance worked with smaller code but fails now. I need to debug and see

YES, this is the problem! The program work ok, even a 5x larger version works well. Clearly the _chkstk calls must be emitted with ELF target on Windows as well - why not? I'd like to make a patch and fix this right. I experimented with both changes and practically only the lib/Target/X86/X86ISelLowering.cpp fixes the problem. The other change lib/Target/X86/X86FrameLowering.cpp was not

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

Hi Yaron, If you're outputting ELF on Windows this sounds like an issue we ran into where __chkstk calls weren't being output in the assembly due to an explicit check for COFF output. Once stack allocations in a given function exceeded some amount we'd get exactly this kind of crash in the function initialization. If you take a look for isTargetCOFF() in

If it's a Windows-only thing the correct tests would be: if (NumBytes >= 4096 && STI.isOSWindows()) { and if (Subtarget->isTargetWindows()) where bool isOSWindows() const { return TargetTriple.isOSWindows(); } Yaron 2013/10/23 Andrew MacPherson <andrew.macp at gmail.com> > Glad that helped! As I understand it __chkstk is always required on > Windows

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:

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:

Glad that helped! As I understand it __chkstk is always required on Windows regardless of output type, I had meant to file a bug about this but had apparently forgotten to do so. I think the check needs to be that the target is Windows and ignore the output type, Linux and OSX don't use this. Cheers, Andrew On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com>

This is the right fix if Cygwin wants calls to __chkstk. Otherwise you'll want TargetTriple.isOSMSVCRT(). On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com> wrote: > If it's a Windows-only thing the correct tests would be: > > if (NumBytes >= 4096 && STI.isOSWindows()) { > > and > > if (Subtarget->isTargetWindows()) >

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

I would guess that it's crashing somewhere in the generated code. On Windows we don't have a way to get call stacks to the generated code (though if you want to try it on Linux, that should work). You can probably look at the address where the crash is occurring and verify that it is in the generated code. There are a couple of things I would look for. First, I'd take a look at the

OS is Windows 7 64 bit OS, compiler is 32 bit Visual C++ 2012 with 32 bit. The target which is i686-pc-mingw32-elf so I can use the ELF dynamic loader. Code model, relocation model and and memory manager are whatever default for this - did not modify. The Module comes from clang. The source is 1000 or more lines repeating C++ code in one big function: A+1; A*B.t(); where A and B are

I'm not aware of such a limitation. What architecture, code model and relocation model are you using? Are you using the SectionMemoryManager? -Andy From: Yaron Keren [mailto:yaron.keren at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:12 AM To: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>; Kaylor, Andrew Subject: Size limitations in MCJIT / ELF Dynamic Linker/ ELF codegen? I'm running in MCJIT a