similar to: [LLVMdev] Usage of getenv() inside LLVM and thread safety

Right. glibc's amusing stance is that you setenv/putenv are not thread safe, but getenv is. I assume Ruby exposes setenv and therefore simply not calling setenv isn't an option. Would it solve your problems if all getenv() calls happened at cl::ParseCommandLineOptions() time? On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink at gmail.com>wrote: > Hello, > >

That sounds like a missed multi-threading issue with LLVM. I can't imagine why the user should be forced to serialize creation of MCContext objects. I would suggest filing a bug for this. A simple lock probably wouldn't be too detrimental to performance here, since MCContext objects shouldn't be created too often. On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink at

Hi Andy, One of the issues that I found not intuitive, is that when an ExecutionEngine is deallocated, the memory manager's destructor is also called. This resulted in having to write two objects in my case, one as a per JIT request memory manager and one global JIT memory manager. The per request JIT memory manager gets memory from the global manager, but both ended up implementing

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Justin Holewinski < justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > That sounds like a missed multi-threading issue with LLVM. I can't > imagine why the user should be forced to serialize creation of MCContext > objects. I would suggest filing a bug for this. A simple lock probably > wouldn't be too detrimental to performance here, since

Hi Dirkjan, Are you using JIT or MCJIT? Cheers. ________________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] on behalf of Dirkjan Bussink [d.bussink at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:18 AM To: Kaylor, Andrew Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Memory clean for applications using LLVM for JIT compilation Hi Andy, One

Hello all, I've already bothered people on IRC with this question and it was recommended to ask it here. First of all, some context. In Rubinius (http://rubini.us/, http://github.com/rubinius/rubinius) we use LLVM for our JIT. We create LLVM IR using the C++ API and turn that into machine code using ExecutionEngine::runJITOnFunction. The resulting native code is then installed as the

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink at gmail.com>wrote: > Hello all, > > I've already bothered people on IRC with this question and it was > recommended to ask it here. > > First of all, some context. In Rubinius (http://rubini.us/, > http://github.com/rubinius/rubinius) we use LLVM for our JIT. We create > LLVM IR using the C++ API and

Thanks for the reply, nice to have some validation. I thought of another approach which might be preferable: generate relocatable code, use a JITEventListener to grab each function and copy it to my own memory, let all the LLVM stuff die normally then use my copy of the code. However when I call setRelocationModel(Reloc::PIC_) on the engine builder I get code that seg faults. The assembly looks

I'm not sure I see why the delegating memory manager feels wrong to both of you. That's exactly the kind of usage model I would envision for clients that needed to handle multiple ExecutionEngines that had reason to share a memory manager. I'm saying this as an invitation to discussion, not to be argumentative. We certainly could change things if it would make the design better.

Hi all, I'd like to ask about something I've been thinking about and haven't found a way to make this possible with LLVM, so I'm wondering whether I'm not looking properly or that indeed that can't be done currently. What I'm trying to do is to be able to modify generated assembly code after it has been created through LLVM. At this point the original LLVM IR

Hello all, When using the JIT on ARM, I get the following error message. The code works fine on both X86 32 and 64 bit architectures. rbx: /home/dirkjan/llvm-3.3.src/include/llvm/CodeGen/MachineOperand.h:260: unsigned int llvm::MachineOperand::getReg() const: Assertion `isReg() && "This is not a register operand!"' failed. Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.

It seems wrong to delegate a dozen or more methods when I only want to change the behavior in a couple small ways. It would have been easier to derive a class, but the base class is inaccessible (in an anonymous namespace). And I was afraid to roll my own memory manager because I didn't understand what all those methods do. So MCJIT is future - will JITMemoryManager remain relevant? If so I

> On 14 Jan 2013, at 15:48, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > > > Or maybe would it be possible to have a custom allocator for memory space for the native code that we could provide? With this last option we would be responsible for the clean up ourselves and just provide memory space to LLVM where it can store the results. > > > > Yes, you should be

On Mar 7, 2013, at 20:48 , Frank Henigman <fjhenigman at google.com> wrote: > I derived a class from JITMemoryManager which delegates everything to > an instance made with CreateDefaultMemManager(). ExecutionEngine > destroys the wrapper, but I keep the inner instance which did the > actual work. Works, but seems a bit ugly. Did you find any other > solutions? I ended up

On 14 Jan 2013, at 15:48, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > Or maybe would it be possible to have a custom allocator for memory space for the native code that we could provide? With this last option we would be responsible for the clean up ourselves and just provide memory space to LLVM where it can store the results. > > Yes, you should be able to inherit from

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Dirkjan Bussink > Subject: [LLVMdev] Modifying machine code after it's generated with LLVM > I'd need to be able to pass a memory address where the actual native > code is generated to this fallback function, but I haven't found any > ways of doing this. Perhaps I don't

Hi Dirkjan, > I've tried looking for this error, but can't seem to find any more information on what the cause of this could be. This looks like a backtrace from the legacy JIT. Unfortunately that's known to be broken on ARM and you should use the MCJIT instead (see tools/lli/lli.cpp for an example of how to enable it). We're hoping to get rid of the old one soon, but there

Hello. Some time ago I committed a Rubinius assembly-based HTTP parser generated from Ragel to the Rubinius git repository. Yesterday I made a Mongrel gem which installs and works on Rubinius. This basically involved commenting out anything to do with fastthread or the http11 C extension. If there''s interest in releasing a Rubinius-targeted gem, I can make changes to the Rakefile to

Unicorn is an HTTP server for Rack applications designed to only serve fast clients on low-latency, high-bandwidth connections and take advantage of features in Unix/Unix-like kernels. Slow clients should only be served by placing a reverse proxy capable of fully buffering both the the request and response in between Unicorn and slow clients. * http://unicorn.bogomips.org/ * mongrel-unicorn at

Hi everyone, I downloaded the latest version of LLVM PTX backend from http://www.prog.uni-saarland.de/projects/anysl and made the required changes to all the files mentioned in the README. But I get the following error when I compile it. llvm[3]: Compiling PTXBackend.cpp for Release build In file included from PTXBackend.h:70:0, from PTXBackend.cpp:36: PTXPasses.h: In constructor