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

----- 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

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: >

----- 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 > >

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

On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Paweł Bylica <pawel.bylica at ibs.org.pl> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Paweł, > > > > Thanks for continuing this discussion. > > > > I like the simplicity of your suggestion. My only concern involves the ambiguity of what is meant by “environment”.

ping From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Kaylor, Andrew Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:10 AM To: Jim Grosbach; Pawel Bylica; Chris Lattner Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu (LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu) Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: MCJIT enhancements Has anything more happened with this? -Andy From: Jim Grosbach [mailto:grosbach at apple.com] Sent:

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

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:55 PM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> writes: > > I can confirm that the issue has been caused by NDEBUG flag. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:29 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > > > The layout of AssertingVH has depended on NDEBUG since 2009,

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:30 PM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:55 PM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> > wrote: > > > > Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> writes: > > > I can confirm that the issue has been caused by NDEBUG flag. >