Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "enumerate symbols in RuntimeDyld"
2015 Aug 20
2
Linking existing functions from JITed code
Lang,
I added the add/get global mapping to my kaleidoscope JIT, but I think perhaps these would make more sense if they were added to the object linking layer as they would be generally usable there.
On Aug 19, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Andy Somogyi wrote:
> Hey Lang,
>
> I've added this to my Kaleidoscope JIT, and it seems to work just fine, basically I copied the global mapping
2015 Aug 20
2
Linking existing functions from JITed code
Hi Andy,
I think that makes sense. I'm currently rewriting the core Kaleidoscope
tutorials - I'll look at adding support for this.
- Lang.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Andy Somogyi <andy.somogyi at gmail.com>
wrote:
> After some fiddling with it, it does in fact look like it works as you
> describe Lang.
>
> The trick was you had to call
>
>
2015 Aug 13
2
Linking existing functions from JITed code
Hi Andy,
I haven't tested this on Linux, but on MacOS the
RuntimeDyldMemorManager::getSymbolAddressInProcess method should find
symbol addresses in the host program, including symbols from static
archives linked into the program. However, one gotcha is that the symbol
has to be reachable from main, otherwise the linker may strip it from the
final executable.
Do you have a test-case that I
2015 Aug 13
4
Linking existing functions from JITed code
Hi
I’ve previously used the ExecutionEngine::addGlobalMapping to make existing
functions available to my JITed code.
I’m currently using ORC, as MCJIT does not appear to be maintained any
longer (the kaleidoscope examples have not worked for some time with
MCJIT).
I’m using just the basic ORC CompileLayer directly.
So, I’ve essentially copied the ExecutionEngine::addGlobalMapping related
2017 Jun 07
3
LLD support for ld64 mach-o linker synthesised symbols
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Michael Clark via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> OK. I see that the Mach-O linker is not even built when LLD is enabled in
> Release_40, only the PE/COFF and ELF linkers are built.
>
> From looking at reviews it appears that Clang was able to be linked with
> LLD on Darwin about 2 years ago, so Mach-O support seems to have
2017 Jun 06
2
LLD support for ld64 mach-o linker synthesised symbols
Hi Rui,
The motivation would be primarily that LLVM/Clang/LLD are community projects such that if I or someone in the community added support for e.g. symbol aliases, then it could be reviewed and potentially merged. ld64 on the other hand does not have a community process for patch submission and code review that I am aware of so its unlikely that if someone from the community came up with a
2020 Oct 02
2
Memory mapping assumptions in RuntimeDyld
Hi!
Implementing the Memory::allocateMappedMemory() function on z/OS, I see a
failure in the AArch64 COFF test case.
The test case has 3 sections. For each section,
Memory::allocateMappedMemory() is called to reserve memory.
If the distance between the pointers gets too large, then the test case
fails. It can be reliable produced with
a distance of 1MB between the pointers. An easy way to
2017 Jun 06
4
LLD support for ld64 mach-o linker synthesised symbols
Hi Folks,
I have a question regarding LLD support for ld64 mach-o linker synthesised symbols. I did a quick search of the LLD source and I can not find support for them so before I start trying to use lld I thought I would ask.
I have found a couple of cases where they are essential. i.e. where there is no other way to get the required information, such as getting the address of the mach-o
2015 Oct 05
2
[cfe-dev] Orc Windows C++
It’s pretty intermittent at the moment…sometimes I get the relocation overflow issue, sometimes I get another issue about BSS sections having no contents.
The source code to reproduce either is simple:
#include <iostream>
int main (int argc, char* argv[])
{
}
I’ve managed to reproduce the BSS section issue in clang consistently, and since that comes before terms of where it happens in
2015 Oct 05
2
[cfe-dev] Orc Windows C++
Oops, sorry for the spam.
That last comment was incorrect. It’s IMAGE_REL_AMD64_REL32 not _5
> On 5 Oct 2015, at 17:26, Joshua Gerrard <joshua.gerrard at roli.com> wrote:
>
> Additional info: when the relocation issue does occur the relocation type is IMAGE_REL_AMD64_REL32_5
>
>> On 5 Oct 2015, at 17:16, Joshua Gerrard <joshua.gerrard at roli.com> wrote:
>>
2016 Jul 07
2
ObjectCache and getFunctionAddress issue
Hi all,
I'm trying to add pre-compiled object cache to my run-time.
I've implemented the object cache as follow:
class EngineObjectCache : public llvm::ObjectCache {
private:
std::unordered_map<std::string, std::unique_ptr<llvm::MemoryBuffer>>
CachedObjs;
public:
virtual void notifyObjectCompiled(const llvm::Module *M,
llvm::MemoryBufferRef Obj) {
auto id =
2015 Oct 14
4
[cfe-dev] Orc Windows C++
That's great news, thanks! If I can be of any help, let me know. :)
I'll see if I can reduce the example for the relocation issue whilst you're
at it.
Regards,
Joshua
--
Joshua Gerrard
JUCE Software Developer
*ROLI’s **award-winning*
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/design/31520/the-seaboard-grand-piano-wins-designs-of-the-year-2014-award.html>*
Seaboard
GRAND, celebrated
2017 Apr 13
2
Using a function from lib/Target/(any arch)/ in lib/ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/
Hello LLVMDevs,
I have written a .cpp file in lib/Target/(some arch)/ and i want to use one
of its function in a file in lib/ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/. So is there
any specific way to do that. This may be a general question for any one who
writes a .cpp file in Target/(any arch)/ and tries to use it somewhere in
ExecitionEngine/RuntimeDyld/. Please guide.
Thanks,
Siddharth
-------------- next
2015 Nov 23
2
COFF::IMAGE_REL_AMD64_REL32 relocation overflow when compiling for x86_64
Some time ago I posted here regarding a relocation overflow on Windows
(among other things), but the issue disappeared and so the thread got left.
I've started this new thread because a) I didn't want to necro the old one
and b) it felt like its own.
I've now encountered the issue again and am noting down all the information
I can get about it whilst it's happening.
The issues is
2014 Sep 18
5
[LLVMdev] VEX prefixes for JIT in llvm 3.5
Hi Matt, Philip,
You could get the data you want by recording the addresses returned by the
allocateCodeSection and allocateDataSection methods on your
RTDyldMemoryManager, then disassembling those sections after you've called
resolveRelocations. That's a little unsatisfying though. For one thing,
unless you very carefully maintain the association with the original object
via
2013 Apr 10
2
[LLVMdev] Migration from JIT to MCJIT
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
2013 Apr 10
2
[LLVMdev] Migration from JIT to MCJIT
Thank you for the help.
The relocation type value is anded with 0xffffffffL. (RuntimeDyldMachO.cpp:214)
Maybe this mask should be different?
Anyway, it seems like this relocation isn't implemented. (RuntimeDyldMachO.cpp:104)
From: Jiong Wang <jiwang at tilera.com<mailto:jiwang at tilera.com>>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 09:42:03 -0400
To: Eran Weiss <eran.weiss at
2014 Nov 04
2
[LLVMdev] Remaining big-endian host issues in RuntimeDyld
Hi Daniel,
Thanks very much - I really appreciate you tracking this down. David - once
Daniel's patch goes in it would be interesting to see what impact his work
has had on PPC. I expect this will fix some of the tests there too.
Regarding the AArch64 stub-addr return: My read is that createStubFunction
returns a pointer to the start of the stub for AArch64. Those switch cases
are a bit
2015 Oct 02
2
[cfe-dev] Orc Windows C++
Thanks for the link!
There’s some code there that looks extremely relevant to say the least.
> On 1 Oct 2015, at 19:00, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe looking at their code might help:
>
> https://github.com/dotnet/llilc/blob/dd12743f9cdb5418f1c39b2cd756da1e8396a922/lib/Jit/LLILCJit.cpp#L299
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:45 AM, David
2014 Jun 24
4
[LLVMdev] Proposal: Improved regression test support for RuntimeDyld/MCJIT.
Hi Dave,
Jim Grosbach asked the same question, so you're in good company. With hindsight I think it was a mistake to say "FileCheck workflow". What I really meant was that this system plays well with lit. Not that your question about using FileCheck would have been any less valid.
I did consider using FileCheck for this, but decided it was the wrong approach. The fundamental reason