similar to: Bugzilla OrcJIT Tickets

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

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

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>

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:

+ 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

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'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 all, I open sourced a small project of mine recently. It is an EDSL for C++ which makes just-in-time compilation much easier to write and maintain. One of its backends is LLVM's OrcJIT (LLVM 7, still). https://github.com/tetzank/coat Here is a blog post of mine introducing the concept: https://tetzank.github.io/posts/coat-edsl-for-codegen/ You can see it as an abstraction layer on top

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

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, I am using the llvm libraries compiled with the C++14 standard with a host application that is compiled with the C++17 standard (Both on Windows/MSVC). I am running into an incompatibility for which I filed a bug report: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44131 However, I was wondering if C++17 host applications are even supported? Regards, Machiel van Hooren

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 All, A preliminary version of removable code support has been posted for review in https://reviews.llvm.org/D79312. This patch removes all uses of VModuleKeys (except for Legacy layers) and takes a whole-JITDylib-at-a-time approach to removal. Removing whole JITDylibs requires more work from clients (compared to per-module removal): Modules to be removed must be placed into throw-away

Hello, I've been trying to use LLVM's Orc JIT from C API for a few days and i can't get it to work, I'm kind of annoyed for the lack of documentation examples for the C API. Here's my code: https://hasteb.in/ohexiweb.cpp I compile it using clang `llvm-config --cflags --ldflags --libs all` main.c -o main -g -rdynamic And it ends up segfaulting at the line where it calls

Hello everyone, According to the release schedule, we're supposed to be tagging 'final' on Wednesday. Unfortunately, I suspect we will be a little late. There are currently 32 open release blockers: https://bugs.llvm.org/buglist.cgi?f1=blocked&o1=equals&v1=33849&query_format=advanced&resolution=--- Some of those have traction, but many don't. Some just need

Hi All, The attached patch (against r225842) contains some new JIT APIs that I've been working on. I'm going to start breaking it up, tidying it up, and submitting patches to llvm-commits soon, but while I'm working on that I thought I'd put the whole patch out for the curious to start playing around with and/or commenting on. The aim of these new APIs is to cleanly support a

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

"git remote get-url" is apparently fairly new, the old version is "git config remote.origin.url". Might be worth using that for compatibility. On Mon, Jul 29, 2019, 5:11 PM Stefan Gränitz <stefan.graenitz at gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Cam, it works for me on TOT (89fb9e8ce15). > > What does the failed command return for you? It should be: > > > git

AFAIK we are the only currently active group in Germany, but from following the list I spotted Johannes (Saarbrücken?) and Piotr (Munich?). They may have more info for you? Thx Am 14.10.16 um 14:18 schrieb picflo_2 at web.de: > Hi Stefan, > > thanks for detailed response. Would be quite interesting to see > different projects and tools in the LLVM ecosystem. > > By the way