similar to: Relocation design of different architecture

Thanks for the reply. I was just asking about in general whatever header files are there in Targets/ for different architectures are not including any function except this processRelocationRef() to be used in RuntimeDyldELF.cpp or RuntimeDyldCOFF.cpp or RuntimeDyldMachO.cpp and i think these files are the ones which are actually doing the relocation and linking work. So what purpose do these

Thanks for reply, it was really helpful. Can u just be more specific and tell about processRelocationRef() and resolveRelocation() in Targets/RuntimeDyld(objectfile format)(arch).h and also in RuntimeDyldELF.cpp and how the same function is implemented in different ways in both the files ? Thanks, Siddharth On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 8:16 PM, mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote:

Thanks. I am just trying to find a relocation and linking design for Hexagon architecture, whether to follow the MIPS style of relocation or other architecture style of relocation. Thats my question . Thats why i was asking about the functions and their differences Please guide. Thanks, Siddharth On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:37 PM, mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote: > If

Hi Andrew, Looks like RecordingMemoryManager in lli just calls malloc() and it would be strange to make assumptions (or enforce) that the difference between two returned pointers in 64-bit virtual address space will be fit into 32 bits. Can we do smth similar to what Adhemerval proposed (see the special case in processRelocationRef for ELF::R_PPC64_REL24 relocations)? On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>wrote: > Yes, at some point we definitely should introduce stubs as a last resort > for x86-64 relocations when the sections are too far apart, but I’d like to > avoid it whenever possible.**** > > ** ** > > What I meant in my previous message was that I’d have > RecordingMemoryManager use

Yes, at some point we definitely should introduce stubs as a last resort for x86-64 relocations when the sections are too far apart, but I'd like to avoid it whenever possible. What I meant in my previous message was that I'd have RecordingMemoryManager use something other than malloc (such as the memory API used by SectionMemoryManager) to keep section near one another. -Andy From:

It's probably best to open a bug. -Andy From: Alexey Samsonov [mailto:samsonov at google.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:27 AM To: Kaylor, Andrew Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: Assertions in RuntimeDyldELF in ExecutionEngine/MCJIT tests On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com<mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>> wrote:

Hi Lang, Yeah, I remember this case. Basically what’s happening is that there are relocations for ELF on x86 that use a value that is present in the object image as part of the calculation for the final value that goes in the same location. If you ever find yourself applying relocations for a second time (for instance, because the loaded object location is remapped for out-of-proc execution)

Hi! I'm trying to run LLVM test suite under AddressSanitizer and get test failures in: LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/simpletest-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-data-align-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-fp-no-external-funcs-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-global-init-nonzero-remote.ll All of them fail with assertion: lli:

Hi Alexey, I think the most likely way to resolve this is to have the RecordingMemoryManager do something more complex to manage its allocations in such a way as to guarantee that they are all within proximity of one another. The code that is asserting is handling a relocation where code was generated to use a 32-bit relative offset in 64-bit code. If the two sections involved really are more

> I tried loading the "msvcrt.lib" as a archive. That was... a bad idea! > I get a Exception while loading: > Assertion failed: ((int64_t)Result <= INT32_MAX) && "Relocation > overflow", file > \lib\executionengine\runtimedyld\Targets/RuntimeDyldCOFFX86_64.h, line 81 It's a limitation of the COFF/PE format and unrelated to exceptions. This patch

Hi Ulrich, and any other llvm PowerPC/JIT users, It looks like the Numba maintainers have run in to an issue with RuntimeDyldELF's PowerPC support (See https://github.com/numba/numba/issues/2451#issuecomment-377739948 and later comments) Due to a recent change to weak symbol handling, we now always resolve to the first copy of a function that is emitted (discarding redundant weak/odr

Hi Bjoern, I'm trying to make exceptions run. I have an Object file with a function, > throwing a 1 and a second function which should catch the 1. Normal JITTING > under Windows showed me, that I have an unresolved reference to the virtual > table of type_info. Some experiments later I was able to load "msvcrt.lib" > as an archive and could resolve the reference. Nice -

Hello Stefan, I'm happy someone replied to my problem! Many thanks! To be honest... I didn't understood much of your mail. I'm a beginner with the JIT - so I will explain what I've done. To manage the memory and resolve symbols, I'm using my own Resolver-Class, which overloads the allocation and the findSymbol functions. I've noticed today, that the

I'm catching up on this. Does this mean LLVM x64 JITTed code is not exception friendly or you can't catch exceptions inside LLVM JITTed code. The first one seems to indicate that the code is not ABI friendly or that not enough information is present to notify Windows of unwind tables. I'll ask the question another way: Does LLVM emit enough information so that RtlAddFunctionTable can

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

Hi llvm-community, I use llc (3.4-final) to generate object file: *llc code.bc -mtriple=x86_64-pc-win32-elf -mcpu=x86-64 -filetype=obj -code-model=large -o=code.o* then I load it with *RuntimeDyld + SectionMemoryManager* in my app. I faced the problem described in 15356 <http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15356>bug. Debug assertion fails at

Hi all, I am new to LLVM and have been working through the Kaleidoscope tutorial. Everything is working fine so far except for local externs (as opposed to things like the math functions, which are working). Note that I have seen this bug with the reference code listing, as well as my own code. link to code: https://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/LangImpl05.html#full-code-listing [c34n10 kaleidoscope]

That's encouraging. Assuming that all access to the JITted code is going to be done through a function pointer, and all JIT code is ephemeral, why is the object container format important? In fact, why is it even needed? I found it somewhat odd that MCJIT generates an object file for even the JIT case. To answer my own question, could it be that advanced JIT's may need/want to use things

Hi List, I'm trying to upgrade our llvm-c based compiler from JIT to MCJIT. While trying to do so I encountered several problems. Looks like C API does not have proper functions to intialize LLVM with MCJIT. I ended up wrapping the following functions in my own init routine. LLVMInitializeX86TargetInfo(); LLVMInitializeX86Target(); LLVMInitializeX86TargetMC(); LLVMInitializeX86AsmPrinter();