similar to: [LLVMdev] MCJIT or ORC JIT for new project?

Hi Kevin, Koffie, We will start migrating to ORC for next release, but for now, this release > invoke delete after remove right? MCJIT's removeModule method does not delete the module. You'll need to do that manually. OrcMCJITReplacement is a bug-for-bug compatible implementation of MCJIT using ORC components, so it does not free the memory either. Does this mean MCJIT is

Hello LLVM-Mailing list, in the past I was using the MCJIT (if I understand it correctly) to load IR modules, compile them and execute them. The speciality of this JIT was, that it was writing the compiled code into a shared memory - for a different process to execute them. For that task the JIT used a 'custom' memory manager, memory mapping and also resolved undefined references itself.

I'm on llvm 3.8.1 and was wondering if there's a memory leak in the removeModule impl of mcjit. In the tutorial http://llvm.org/releases/3.8.1/docs/tutorial/LangImpl4.html a module is removed from the Jit by invoking removeModule. According to the tutorial: "Its API is very simple:: addModule adds an LLVM IR module to the JIT, making its functions available for execution;

Hi Bjoern, CC'ing Lang hames For questions, 1. In short yes, you can replace the memory manager, default one provided is section memory manager. 2. If you mean by " address of already compiled code", yes you can do that. Like this JITDylib.define(absoluteSymbols, ( Your_own_symbol , JITTargetAddress(Address of function))), now ORC can resolve all the references to Your_own_symbol

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

Russell Wallace via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > When writing a JIT compiler using LLVM, as I understand it, you can use two > alternative APIs, MCJIT and Orc. The latter offers lazy compilation. Would > it be accurate to say that if you want eager compilation - always compile > an entire module upfront - you should use MCJIT? +lang. My understanding is that

Nice! Let me try to answer some questions, Before that I have to mention this is ORC version 2 APIs and this is where the project is moving forward. JITDylib is the symbol table, basically for a JIT Symbol it have an associated materializers, (you can think of it like an entity that generate the address for that symbol), Example: compiler are materializers. So to add symbols to your own JIT you

When writing a JIT compiler using LLVM, as I understand it, you can use two alternative APIs, MCJIT and Orc. The latter offers lazy compilation. Would it be accurate to say that if you want eager compilation - always compile an entire module upfront - you should use MCJIT? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Right, but is there any known use case where Orc's flexibility allows something to be done that couldn't be with MCJIT, apart from lazy compilation? On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Russell Wallace via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > When writing a JIT compiler using LLVM, as I understand it, you

Hi, I am building a new JIT compiler for Lua (actually a derivative of Lua), and am planning to use LLVM for this. I have trying out some basic functions using LLVM 3.5.1. I have been puzzled by one aspect of the MCJIT versions of the Kaleidoscope sample, and would hugely appreciate some insight. Can a single MCJIT instance be used to manage several modules? Why is a separate MCJIT instance

Hi, I am looking to port my MCJIT based implementation to ORC. I have been reading up on the ORC tutorials, but am not clear on how to do following: I would like to discard everything other than the compiled code after compiling a module. A module may have more than one function in it - so I would like to retain all the compiled functions. I am okay with eager compilation - i.e. there is no need

HI Dibyendu, A single MCJIT instance can notionally manage multiple modules, but there are caveats (which I'm afraid I don't remember off the top of my head) that make it unattractive in practice. I believe most clients opt for something like the ExecutionEngine-per-Module model used in the Kaleidoscope tutorials. As Dave mentioned, I'm also working on some new JIT APIs (Orc) that

Hi, On 22 September 2017 at 15:33, Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile at majumdar.org.uk> wrote: > I am looking to port my MCJIT based implementation to ORC. I have been > reading up on the ORC tutorials, but am not clear on how to do > following: > > I would like to discard everything other than the compiled code after > compiling a module. > A module may have more than one

Hi Koffie, I'd highly recommend switching to ORC from MCJIT. It is much more flexible when it comes to memory-management. 1. I took the approach of 1 execution engine with multiple modules (I'm not > removing modules once they have been added). During profiling, I noticed > that the memory usage is high with a lot of code. How can I reduce the > memory usage? Is one execution

Thanks so much! This seems to do the trick. I would have spun my wheels for a long time before discovering all of this, wow. Do I even want to know what additional chickens need to be sacrificed to get this to work on Windows? -- lg > On May 18, 2016, at 1:52 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Larry, > > You're basically there, but you're hitting

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Per Mildner <Per.Mildner at sics.se> wrote: > Charlie Turner <charlesturner7c5 <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > I was planning on committing these changes with the corresponding > > changes to the Kaleidoscope tutorial walk-through. Might be a bit of a > > surprise to have no explanation of what MCJITHelper and friends is

Hi Larry, Thanks so much! This seems to do the trick. I would have spun my wheels for > a long time before discovering all of this, wow. No worries. :) I'll try to keep this in mind and make sure I address it in future Kaleidoscope tutorial chapters - these issues tripped me up the first time I encountered them too. Do I even want to know what additional chickens need to be sacrificed

Hi Philip, In terms of the overall idea, I like what your proposing. However, I want > to be very clear: you are not planning on removing any functionality from > the existing (fairly low level) MCJIT interface right? > To confirm - I have no plans to remove MCJIT. I don't want to change any behavior for existing clients. The new stuff is opt-in. > We've built our own

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > No progress since Charlie last looked at it. Sorry, I meant to refer to the issue Per Mildner mentioned regarding the tutorials not building due to RTTI - which I recall discussing with you & Eric, but don't know what came of it. > As Per suggested, it may be > worth adding an explicit #error, or at