similar to: Orc/MCJIT: Relocations vs pointers to functions

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, 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

Hi Lang, thanks for announcing. Would be great if you could send another short notice as soon as the actual patch exists. Best, Stefan Am 24.05.16 um 23:06 schrieb Lang Hames via llvm-dev: > Hi All, > > I'm going to be making some API breaking changes to the ORC APIs, and > to the RuntimeDyld class (which underlies MCJIT). The changes may > affect MCJIT clients but are unlikely

Yes, I’m handling all internal and external relocations manually in NotifyLoadedFtor and I already verified that I get the behavior I need if I comment out the call to resolveRelocations. I would like to reuse ObjectLinkingLayer::addObjectSet (which eventually calls RuntimeDyld::loadObject), which has the right calls to the memory manager and also RuntimeDyld::registerEHFrames. I understand that

Hi Eugene, Sorry for the delayed reply. Custom relocations weren't something I had in mind when I designed Orc, so they raise some interesting design questions which I don't have good answers to yet. (E.g. The interface for the Orc layer concept assumes that there's a RuntimeDyld instance embedded at the bottom of the stack. That's why addModuleSet takes a MemoryManager and

Hi All, I'm going to be making some API breaking changes to the ORC APIs, and to the RuntimeDyld class (which underlies MCJIT). The changes may affect MCJIT clients but are unlikely to. Where they do the fixes are likely to be trivial. ORC clients will be affected, but the fixes should also be straightforward. I have three upcoming changes in mind: 1) RuntimeDyld (the linker underlying

When using ORC JIT, I'm having trouble with external function resolution (that is, of a function defined in the app, with C linkage). I add a declaration for the function to my IR, and when I use MCJIT, it finds it and all is well, But when I use ORC JIT (I *think* correctly, at least it closely matches what I see in the tutorial), I get an LLVM error, "Program used external function

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 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

Agreed, that sounds like the best plan. I'll look into moving LLILC to ORC. Thanks -Joseph From: Russell Hadley Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 8:13 PM To: Lang Hames; Joseph Tremoulet Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] MCJit interface question Hey Joseph, What Lang said made me wonder. Is it the right time for us (LLILC) to move to ORC? The long term plan was to go there but

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

----- 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

Hello everyone, I need some advises about (re)using ExecutionEngine with MCJIT as a driver. I'm developing a service that receives a piece of high-level code, compiles it into LLVM IR function "main" and uses MCJIT to execute the function. It can happen that the same piece of code is sent to the service many times. I would like to cache the results (keep generated machine 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 > >

>> llvm::sys::DynamicLibrary::LoadLibraryPermanently(nullptr) This is one is a bit tricky and hard to find. I spent quiet some time digging into MC and ORC JIT execution engines trying to find what makes them work. The problem is that this trick (LoadLibraryPermanently) happens inside of EngineBuilder, despite that the functionality belongs to a JIT engine itself, not to the builder. I

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 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. >