similar to: [LLVMdev] MCJIT code owner nomination

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

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

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

Correct or no I don't know, but this change will affect all x86-64 targets including Linux and Windows as getMaxStubSize() is called from the ELF linker as well as the Mach-O linker. 2013/10/15 Christian Schafmeister <chris.schaf at verizon.net> > > With the help of iain at codesourcery.com and andrew.kaylor at intel.com we > tracked the problem down to a bad relocation that

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

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

Yes, you are correct Yaron. Before we commit this we ought to put a check in to see what the target OS is. I just suggested the change below as a quick and easy way to verify that this was the cause of the problem. I'll clean it up. -Andy From: Yaron Keren [mailto:yaron.keren at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:09 PM To: Christian Schafmeister; Kaylor, Andrew; iain at

I'm about to start working on multiple module support in MCJIT. I know a lot of people are interested in this so it seemed like a good idea to begin by soliciting input. My immediate plan involves the following: - Add something to the MCJIT interface to explicitly request module compilation - Isolate module-specific state variables into a structure so that the state of each module can be

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 David, Following up on the problems we discussed yesterday on IRC regarding TLS with MCJIT, I've put together the attached experimental patch. This patch makes three changes: 1. SectionMemoryManager is changed to request memory below the 2GB boundary by default. 2. sys::Memory::allocateMappedMemory is changed to set the MAP_32BIT flag if the requested "near" block

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:

If I spoke incorrectly about what systems this problem/change effects I apologize. I'll leave it to Andrew to determine that. Best, .Chris. "Kaylor, Andrew" <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> writes: > Yes, you are correct Yaron.  Before we commit this we ought to put a > check in to see what the target OS is.  I just suggested the change > below as a quick and easy way

Hi Andy, Sounds good in general. One question below: On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>wrote: > I'm about to start working on multiple module support in MCJIT. I know a > lot of people are interested in this so it seemed like a good idea to begin > by soliciting input. > > My immediate plan involves the following: > > -

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, I had similar problems with EH in ELF in RTDyldMemoryManager::registerEHFrames() calling __register_frame(). I'm not sure these problems are related to this problem since your crash happens in RuntimeDyldMachO::registerEHFrames() in its own processFDE (there are two functions named processFDE(), one in RuntimeDyldMachO.cpp and one in RTDyldMemoryManager.cpp) *before*

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.

Existing clients (LLDB) deal with externals by resolving them to constant function pointers that are referenced in the IR. That’s obviously ugly as hell, but it gets things done. The old JIT was able to simplify things because it assumed the JITed code was running in the same process as the JIT compiler. The MCJIT doesn’t assume that, so it has to handle more possibilities. For example, that the

Hi Christian, Thanks for sharing this. Yaron Keren has been investigating some problems in the EH frame registration code recently, and I think this may be related. It at least sounds similar to the type of variations in behavior based on code size that Yaron was seeing. -Andy -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of

Andrew, I've attached a small reproduction of the issue. Reproduce by: $ /usr/bin/g++ `llvm-config --cxxflags` -g -m32 -c mcjit_external_symbol.cpp $ /usr/bin/g++ `llvm-config --ldflags` -g -m32 -o mcjit_external_symbol mcjit_external_symbol.o `llvm-config --libs all` $ ./mcjit_external_symbol verifying... LLVM ERROR: Program used external function '_external' which could not be

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: