similar to: LLVM C API OrcJIT

I looked around for the status of OrcJIT FFI support. The last e-mail thread I could find was this one: Link <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-February/081679.html> Raw: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-February/081679.html Is OrcJIT now considered stable enough that there can be "official" exposed C APIs? If not, what's the standard approach if I

Hello, I was wondering if there is someone already working on putting the new OrcJIT APIs in the LLVM-C bindings? Also, is there a general consensus to also add C bindings when new major features are added? Hayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150201/061f5949/attachment.html>

Thanks, David. I'd be happy to add the bindings .. is there a general way we add them? Or do you just scrub the API and make sensible judgements to the API? On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:55 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I

I didn't seen any roadmap and plan about OrcJit & MCJIT. And would OrcJIT be stablize in version 7.0? Or latter version? Would MCJIT be removed in source tree, when? -- 此致 礼 罗勇刚 Yours sincerely, Yonggang Luo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I have a problem mounting Samba shares with recent mount packages from RedHat and Samba packages from samba site. I have tried samba-2.2.4 RPM and samba-2.2.5 (built for RH7.2). In all cases mount fails if I use RH mount package version > 2.11b (current is 2.11n). If I also use Samba packages (2.2.4) from RedHat Rawhide - everyhting works Here is detailed description I have submitted to RH

Hello everyone A previous thread about OrcJIT brought up bug reports on Bugzilla. A quick search gives 20+ results: https://bugs.llvm.org/buglist.cgi?component=OrcJIT&list_id=162232&query_format=advanced&resolution=--- While some of them are obviously outdated (addModuleSet API cleanup [1]), others may actually be relevant again (Small code model? [2]). If you reported one of them,

+ MLIR dev mailing list since that’s where the OrcJit I’m using is. Thanks for all the details, Lang! What you described is exactly what I’m looking for! Please, MLIR dev, let me know if this debug feature and the solution that Lang describes below is interesting for MLIR. I’ll dig more into the details then but it doesn’t seem too complicated. Thanks, Diego From: Lang Hames [mailto:lhames at

I've been playing with OrcJIT a bit, and from the looks of it I can (like in the previous JIT I suppose?) ask for a function to be re generated. If I've given the address of the function that LLVM gave me to an external party, do "I" need to ensure thread-safety? Or is it safe to ask OrcJIT to re generate code at that address and everything will work magically? I'm

Hi Stefan Thank you! In case, you missed in llvm-dev listing: you can find the proposal here : link. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1202EcXlWMQ8yxu5qD0b5fE0a_kihlcaPNpZo_Jk0YeQ/edit?usp=sharing> Thanks for working on summarising the Bugzilla tickets to track the recent changes in ORC this is really helpful. On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 21:33, Stefan Gränitz <stefan.graenitz at

Dear LLVM-Developers and Vinod Grover, we are trying to extend the cling C++ interpreter (https://github.com/root-project/cling) with CUDA functionality for Nvidia GPUs. I already developed a prototype based on OrcJIT and am seeking for feedback. I am currently a stuck with a runtime issue, on which my interpreter prototype fails to execute kernels with a CUDA runtime error. === How to use the

Hi Sanjoy, > You need the hijack-return-pc approach *in addition* to a call-site > patching approach. Modifying the return PC lets you guarantee that > nothing will *return* into the old generated code. To guarantee that > nothing will *call* into it either you could use a double indirection > (all calls go through a trampoline) or patchpoints. You need to hijack the return

Hi Sanjoy, >> (1) Replacing function bodies at the same address is impossible if the >> function is already on the stack: You'd be replacing a definition that >> you're later going to return through. > > If the function you wish to replace is active on the stack, you can > replace the return PC that was going to return into that active frame > with a PC

Hi Lang, thank You very much. I've used Your code and the creating of the object file works. I think the problem is after creating the object file. When I link the object file with ld I get an executable, which is working right. After changing the clang and llvm libraries from the package control version (.deb) to a own compiled version with debug options, I get an assert() fault. In void

Hi Hayden, Dave's answer covers this pretty well. Neither Orc nor MCJIT currently reason about replacing function bodies. They may let you add duplicate definitions, but how they'll behave if you do that isn't specified in their contracts. They definitely won't replace old definitions unless you provide a custom memory manager that's rigged to lay new definitions down on top

I can't seem to get an external function to my IR be resolved after declaring it with external linkage. Its segfaulting. Using mingw32 qt and the C API for LLVM. Trying to interpret it fails saying program used an unknown external function. Any assistance?

Hello there, I've just noticed that scripts in /etc/cron.{daily,weekly,...} are not launched for several weeks (I noticed a `locate` not finding a recently added binary). Exactly, it's since June 02, and `# service cron status` says: Redirecting to /bin/systemctl status crond.service * crond.service - Command Scheduler Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/crond.service; enabled;

Hi All, In the interests of improving visibility into ORC JIT development I'm going to try writing weekly status updates for the community. I hope they will provide insight into the design and state of development of LLVM's JIT APIs, as well as serving as a convenient space for discussions among LLVM's large and growing community of JIT API users. The length and detail will vary

I'm running centos 5.5 - 64 on Nvidia hardware. I am getting video from totem mixed in with my background image when I stop totem. If I change the background back to the default it does not seem to happen. However, as soon as I change the background to something else like ladybug.jpg and run totem fullscreen, then ask totem to quit with "totem --quit" the last video image is

On 4 August 2016 at 17:31, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > (1) The list says nothing about using (appropiate) LLVM infrastructure > like the MC subsystem. Should it be a requirements for (new) targets to > support the full source-to-object chain? Hi Joerg, This is a clear task for code review, not target inclusion policy. This list is

Hi All, I'm back again after a couple of weeks hiatus, and I have some good news for anyone interested in cross-process JITing with OrcV2: The remote TargetProcessControl and Orc library breakup patch has landed in 1d0676b54c4 [1]. Thanks very much to Dave Blaikie and Stefan Graenitz for all their feedback on the review! As described in my last email, this commit breaks the OrcJIT library