similar to: GSoC- Speculative compilation support in ORC v2 , looking for mentors!

Hi Bekket, Sorry for the delayed reply. By appropriate, I mean performance of compiled native code. I was referring other JIT implementations like LuaJIT & webkit FTL JIT to see how they implement their JIT. I have gone through the design of Spider Monkey & Android runtime (ART) JIT. As, you said both region based and method based compilation unit have their own advantage &

Hi Bekket, Thank you for your reply. Earlier I came across a paper called "Dynamic Look Ahead Compilation: Hide JIT compilation latencies", it devised some methods for JIT compilation of functions before the actual call takes place by using call graph analysis, branch probabilities to generate a list of functions with high likelihood of execution in near future. In my opinion it

Hi, David: Good point, it will be interesting to see speculative compilation in this context applying on devirtualization, with high level (type) information if applicable. > On Mar 28, 2019, at 2:35 PM, preejackie <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi David & Bekket, > > Thanks your replies :) > > David, Indent here is: ORC v2 JIT APIs has

Devirtualization is an example of predicting calls and is much more easily done on a higher-level representation. It is simply easier to reason about certain things given information that is lost during translation to LLVM IR. The MLIR project makes similar arguments. It would be helpful to know what's being attempted here. I'm not sure what the (hardware?) branch predictor has to do

Hi David, Thanks for your reply. I find that I need to add some new types of profile data that are specific to JIT environment like Function Ordering. Function Ordering is similar to dynamic call graph which records the execution of functions at runtime along with the order in which they are called. Eg: Suppose they are 5 functions (F1..F5). F1 calls other functions in the order described

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

Hi all, I need to do dynamic profiling in ORC JIT between the runs. Is it possible to re-use parts of the static pgo code in llvm for the purpose given that JIT uses llvm codegen. Or I need to write my own implementation to support profile guide optimization in JIT ? Please tell me if you want information. -- Have a great day! PreeJackie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Hi folks, Rather by accident than on purpose I looked at the release notes and found the following: http://releases.llvm.org/8.0.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#changes-to-the-jit-apis TL;DR: Orc v1 is deprecated and will be removed in the next release. I have several questions in this regard: 1. Is there a migration guide I can use to update my code to the new version? 2. Is there any development

Hi All, The general initializer support patch has landed (see 85fb997659b plus follow up fixes). Some quick background: Until now ORC, like MCJIT, has handled static initializer discovery by searching for llvm.global_ctors and llvm.global_dtors arrays in the IR added to the JIT. This approach suffers from several drawbacks: 1) It provides no built-in support for other program representations:

Heyho, I can only provide you with a screenshot for the first problem I noticed: [https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/534012750045642783/575369402195640321/unknown.png] This code will crash when calling "eeBuilder.create". But I also looked at what happens if I do reuse the llvm::ExecutionEngine. After the call to "finalizeObject" I use "removeModule" for the

Hi all, I'm looking for some program analysis techniques which help me to find potential functions to execute next, from the current executing function. I want to decision based on compile time information. I consider LLVM IR is too low-level to make such analysis. So, I using call graph representation of module. I figured out the probability of function which execute next based on the

Hi Javed, On 06/18/10 14:07, Javed Absar wrote: > Hi: > I worked on loop-optimizations techniques previously using ORC. > Currently i see lots of research on speculative parallelization of > loops ... specially because multicores [for embedded systems] is > becoming popular. In other words, because you have > multiple cores, you can start some loops [Fast-Track] as if there is

Hi Lang, Thank you for your answer! This helped me again a lot!! Also that ResourceTracker is a really neat feature! Looking forward to it! :3 I changed the title cause… there is another issue I have (sorry about that…) I’m finally allowed to investigate the ORC JIT for integration into our system, which meant I got a few days to actually play around with it. However, another problem arise

Hi Christian Your use case seems to have similar requirements as remote JITing in ORC. So far I haven't used that part myself and I am sure Lang can tell you much more about it. However, this comment on the RemoteObjectClientLayer class sounds promising for your questions (1) and (2): /// Sending relocatable objects to the server (rather than fully relocated /// bits) allows JIT'd code

Hey Lang, I would be really happy to only have one LLJIT instance and using multiple JITDylibs. However… it seems like that I don’t know enough to use them. So I wonder… 1. When I add Module A to JITDylib A and Module B to JITDylib B – where will those look for undefined symbols? Will Module A for example: will it only search itself and the MainDylib? Or would it also search in JITDylib B?

FYI to all: I've updated the design document to include the newly disclosed variants 1.1 and 1.2 (collectively called Bounds Check Bypass Store or BCBS). There is no change to the proposed implementation which can already robustly mitigate these variants. I've also updated my patch as we have very significant interest in getting at least an early "beta" version of this into the

Thank you Alex, I went and implemented a solution along those lines. It works well. It may be worth mentioning static constructors in the Kaleidoscope tutorial. Cheers, Daniele ________________________________________ From: Alex Denisov [1101.debian at gmail.com] Sent: 15 March 2019 08:07 To: Daniele Vettorel Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Static constructors with ORC

Hi Alex Correction : Kaleidoscope chapter 1 & 2 are up-to-date. But chapter 3..5 are not. On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 23:22, Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Alex > Sorry for late reply > > The New ORC APIs support concurrent compilation. > I'm not aware of any migration guide to ORC v2 from v1. But there is a > in-tree classes called

Hi, On 2020-10-01 15:29:12 -0700, Lang Hames wrote: > 24bytes / object -- Looks like I managed module ownership correctly but > leaked the ThreadSafeModule container. This should be fixed in 5044196b412f. That helped a bit, but not yet fully. Looks like it might be still reachable memory, so leakcheck isn't that helpful. Oooh. I think I see. For various reasons the symbol names we

yeah i m concerned about jit compilation time.. On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:57 PM Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes I think so.. Could you please tell me in which context (compile time > improvement)? That is whether you are interested in knowing whether having > ORC instead of MCJIT, will increase your LLVM Build time or you are > concerned