similar to: [LLVMdev] Caching ExecutionEngine / MCJIT

Hi, I think ExecutionEngine as a common interface for both Interpreter and MCJIT is almost useless in the current form. There are separated methods in ExecutionEngine for similar or the same features provided by Interpreter and MCJIT, i.e. to get a pointer to function you should call getPointerToFunction() for Interpreter or getFunctionAddress() for MCJIT. Personally, I'm using MCJIT and

Another question: Lang, when do you think it'll be ok to move it to the C Bindings? On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > I agree. ExecutionEngine, in its current form, is unhelpful. I'd be in > favor of cutting the common interface back to something like: > > class ExecutionEngine { > public: > virtual

Thanks! Currently using MCJIT. But migration to ORC is on my TODO list. - Paweł On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:30 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > Option (1) and (3) are very similar, but using custom resolution (option > 3) guarantees that JIT'd code can't accidentally end up depending on > functions in your JIT that you didn't mean to

Hi LLVM, Lang. I'm looking for a advice here. And I truly understand very little what the relocations are and how they work. The problem I want to solve is the case where a jitted code has to call back the host application to query additional data. I can think of 3 possible solutions: 1. Use built-in relocation resolver (in default memory manager?) and allow the JIT to find the

Hi everyone, In llvm 4.0 the MCJIT::getFunctionAddress function return 0 (a null address) when the symbol is not found : *uint64_t MCJIT::getSymbolAddress(const std::string &Name, bool CheckFunctionsOnly) { std::string MangledName; { raw_string_ostream MangledNameStream(MangledName); Mangler::getNameWithPrefix(MangledNameStream, Name, getDataLayout()); } return

Thu Jul 12 03:42:12 CDT 2012, Verena Beckham verena at codeplay.com : > I would not say it is trivial, having done it myself. > > MCJIT also doesn't support multiple modules, and it does not do JITing > on demand, instead, it does all of it at the same time in the > constructor (unless that is what you call "not lazy"). > So depending on how you've written your

Hi, I'm trying to speed up the JIT time with llvm (3.9.1). So far i've implemented the object cache, used FastISel and disabled optimizations. Jit time is still too slow for my purpose (I do have a lot of code to Jit). http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#threads-and-the-jit states that we can invoke ExecutionEngine::getPointerToFunction() concurrently. This function was replaced

Hi everyone, I was happily using MCJIT for over a year until yesterday when I created a function call with an argument of a struct type. That caused a crash in SelectionDAG around DataLayout::getAlignment(). I remember the noise about the DataLayout started being mandatory. But I cannot find precise information. Should I set the DataLayout in every Module created? Where can I get the

Hi Pawel, Some of the issues I have come across (from memory!) are * MCJIT doesn't work on Windows, because it doesn't support COFF. If you want to use it on Windows you have to either target Mach-O (not clear whether that will work in general) or ELF (need to get a patch from Intel to be able to use this). * Make sure you include MCJIT.h and link in MCJIT.lib, otherwise (even if

In MCJIT, the old JIT functions are deprecated in favor of getFunctionAddress. Code like: llvm::Function *F = M->getFunction(FuncName); void *FN = EE->getPointerToFunction(F); should be rewritten as uint64_t FN = EE->getFunctionAddress(FuncName); While functionally identical, in case the correct module is known the new version will be much slower, linear with the number of added

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > To: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:45:11 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Problems with instruction scheduling > > > > Any comments? Not in particular, but I think we're pretty close to applying a rewrite by Jonas Paulsson

The search is linear? If that’s really true, we should fix that. On Oct 21, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > I should have read this before sending my previous reply. :-) > > I’m not a big fan of default parameters, but some form of what you are suggesting may be useful. See my other comments on this topic in the other reply. > >

On 28 April 2015 at 00:30, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > I think Paweł identified the problem. The frames on the stack between the > setjmp and longjmp must have valid unwind information, which is described > here: > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ft9x1kdx.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396 > > In particular, it has this line about JITed code: >

I should have read this before sending my previous reply. :-) I'm not a big fan of default parameters, but some form of what you are suggesting may be useful. See my other comments on this topic in the other reply. -Andy From: Yaron Keren [mailto:yaron.keren at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 3:17 PM To: Kaylor, Andrew; <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Subject: An enhancement

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Jonas Paulsson" <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:19:14 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Problems with instruction scheduling > >

I don’t follow. Why are we looking at the module at all? That query should work even (especially) after the Module is deleted. We should be able to have a local symbol table that’s a DenseMap or something similar to resolve from names to target addresses. That map would be updated as part of the compilation when the object’s symbol table gets read. -Jim On Oct 21, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Kaylor,

There's probably a lot that we could do, but I can't think of anything easy. Basically every time we need to look up a symbol by name we're going to each module and saying "Do you have this symbol?" It would likely be much better if we grabbed the function names from the module and did the search ourselves so that we could keep some information about the things that

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:03 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > > To: "David Majnemer" <david.majnemer at gmail.com> > > Cc: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 5:42:24 AM > > Subject: Re:

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Cooper" <peter_cooper at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 6:42:41 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] extractelement causes memory access violation - what to

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Cooper" <peter_cooper at apple.com> > To: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 12:08:37 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] extractelement causes memory access violation - what