similar to: Commit 93af05e03e05d2f85b5a7e20ec3a3a543584d84f causes warning

Generally it is preferable to store bitfields using plain integer types because MSVC has surprising behavior when packing bitfields of differing type. MSVC, for example, will not back this into one byte: bool a : 1; uint8_t b : 2; bool c : 1; So, for LLVM or any other cross platform project, I recommend storing enums as some integer type, using the same type for all bitfields, and adding

Hello, I am trying to run this basic C++ hello-world code in my iOS app that has LLVM libraries linked in (the app runs on the actual device - iPad Pro, iOS 13.4.1). #include <iostream> int main (int argh, char *argv[]) { std::cout << "Hello World!" << std::endl; return 0; } So below is the break down of the steps that I do: First I compile this code to an

Hi On Windows 10 when using a debug build of LLVM 10, I get this assertion failure: Assertion failed: (KV.second.getFlags() & ~WeakFlags) == (I->second & ~WeakFlags) && "Resolving symbol with incorrect flags", file C:\work\github\llvm-10.0.0.src\lib\ExecutionEngine\Orc\Core.cpp, line 450 The same failure occurred in LLVM 9 too: Assertion failed: I->second ==

Hi Lang, Please see below is the trace. -- Thanks, Igor *2020-06-06 12:05:21.016705-0400 CppDevProCompiler[6613:3000073] Running...* *jitLink_MachO: magic = 0xfeedfacf, identifier = "llvm-link.submodule-jitted-objectbuffer"* *jitLink_MachO: cputype = 0x0100000c, cpusubtype = 0x00000000* *Creating normalized sections...* * __text: 0x0000000000000000 -- 0x0000000000000064, align:

Hi Andres, Postgres uses removable code support and Orcv1. I does make me quite > worried to see a phase where there'll be no viable way of using both in > llvm. Why isn't the right answer here to at lest develop the > replacement as a set of patches / as a branch that then can be merged as > a whole / shortly after each other, rather than just starting to develop > a

Hi Dave, Yep. This is JITLink specific, so we could only have observed it on MachO x86-64 or arm64 until recently. It takes a little bit of poking to get IR to produce a zero-lengh section on MachO, but not much. Jared Wyles recently contributed an initial JITLink ELF implementation, so the fix seems timely -- we might have been about to see more of it. -- Lang. On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:02 PM

Hey everyone, I felt this question is different from my other question - hope this is okay. So - I was playing around with the lookup function of the ExecutionSession and there are some things I don't understand. I have a .BC file with a function "?Sampler@@YAXXZ" referencing a value "?_Plansch_test@@3HA" that is not defined in that module itself. I first planed on not

Hi Bjoern, Thanks for your patience. The good news is that there is a neater way to do this: ExecutionSession's lookup methods take a orc::SymbolState parameter which describes the state that symbols must reach before a query can return (See https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/d1a7bfca74365c6523e647fcedd84f8fa1972dd3/llvm/include/llvm/ExecutionEngine/Orc/Core.h#L1273).In your case you

Hey Lang, Thank you for your help and your patience – also for your answers in the “ORC JIT - Can modules independently managed with one LLJIT instance? + problems with ExecutionSession.lookup” mail. Both problems have the same origin so I keep writing about it here, to avoid duplication. My big problem is still handling cross references between modules with “our” name scheme. Since our old

Hi All, I've updated the orcv1 removal branch ( https://github.com/lhames/llvm-project/tree/orcv1-removal) with an initial patch for removable code. If anyone wants to follow along with the development or share thoughts on the design you're very welcome to. I'll be adding tests and comments this week, but for anyone who wants to take an early look the main elements are defined in

Hey Lang, > Do you mean that the object file is produced by another process and is being loaded into your JIT process for execution, or that you want your JIT to produce code for several different processes? These are different problems with different solutions. I'll wait until I understand your use case to answer further. In the current state we don’t have a JIT only an handcrafted object

We are trying to switch to the new orc v2 lljit engine at my work with hopes of parallel jitting. We are switching from the ExecutionEngine w/ OrcMCJitReplacement. We are having a hard time with global variables. We have found a way to create/emit new globals during jitting by using the old ExecutionEngine::getOrEmitGlobalVariable. Is there an easier way to do this with the new jit engine? We were

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

Hey Lang, Woah! That mail contains a lot of information and things I never tried yet… Actually… the entire MaterializationUnit and MaterializationResponsibility part is… quite… overwhelming >O< With “pop up” I mean… the process which is waiting for Module “Planschi” to “pop up” can not do a thing about it. It just waits until there is an table entry for it, indicating that the object file

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?

Many thanks for the sample code, Alex. In the end I did it the same way OrcMCJITReplacement does it. Constructors and destructors are called and, thanks to LocalCXXRuntimeOverrides, the program does not crash on exit! But it does seem like there should be a simpler way; the learning curve is steep... Geoff On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 at 12:28, Alex Denisov <1101.debian at gmail.com> wrote: >

Hi Geoff, Importing symbols into the JIT from an object file or static library...? Sure! Are you interested in doing this with the C API, LLJIT, or raw OrcV2 components? The high-level answer here (which we can dig into further in the BoF) is: For object files: - For raw OrcV2 components you'll want to create an RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer or ObjectLinkingLayer and use the 'add'

Hello LLVM developers, I am developing a small project using LLVM. The objective is to provide dynamic loading via JIT compilation of C++ code contained in a (TS) module. For this reason, I would like to return an explicitly raw void pointer (resembling libdl's `void *dlsym(void *, char const *);` as closely as possible) to the compiled result. The MCJIT class offers the most convenient API

When OrcMCJITReplacement is given a new module, it asks for the module's constructors, gives them names like $static_ctor.0, $static_ctor.1, etc., and saves the mangled names in a map. Later, to execute them, it uses runViaLayer(), which looks for those symbol names in the given JIT layer. Could one not simply execute the constructors straight away, rather than naming them and looking them up

Hi Geoff, We use LLJIT. Do addObjectFile() and StaticLibraryDefinitionGenerator work > for ELF objects? They do. :) I've not tested StaticLibraryDefinitionGenerator extensively on Linux. but we have a regression test checking basic usage. If you run into any trouble at all please file a bug and assign it to me. -- Lang. On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Geoff Levner <glevner at