similar to: Eager compilation and relocatable dynamic linkable code-generation

Hi all, I am using LLVM for JIT use-case and compile functions on the fly. I want to "free" the modules after some time and reclaim any memory associated with it. I am using the SimpleORC API <https://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/BuildingAJIT1.html> now. Is there an API to "free" all the memory associated with the module? I use one "compiler" instance (think similar

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

Hey Lang and Stefan, Using dllimport on my “planschiValue” actually worked! But I have no idea why, because the relocation is still a REL32 if I use dumpbin… So how is it possible for that to work? However… when I load an COFF object file, am I able to change the relocations to dllimport somehow? I honestly can’t imagine how this would work since the machine code is probably already adjusted to

Hi All, This was a quiet week -- the only significant ORC change was to the new TargetProcessControl API [1], which acquired the ability to load libraries and search for symbols in the target process in [2]. A new TargetProcessControl based definition generator is included to take advantage of this, and the LLJITWithTargetProcessControl example has been updated to include it. Regards, Lang. [1]

Hey Lang, That is really cool :D Is the creation of that table a Windows thingy or is this the way the LLVM handles it? Also… since it is COFF related – the never ending story of “finding my global constructors” first of all: Yes! I tried using the “initialize” function of LLVMJIT – however this only worked when I was loading a Module. When I added the object file (from the same source) the

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

Hi Björn I made a workaround for this specific issue a long time ago for the Projucer C++ JIT Engine. It basically forwards the call to another stub that provides enough space to encode a full 64-bit address. The patch is based on LLVM 3.9, so I guess it won't work out-of-the-box on a recent release, but it may give you enough hints to figure it out on your own:

Hi All, There was only one interesting ORC-specific commit this week: A new example showing how to initialize and de-initialize JITDylibs has been added in llvm/examples/OrcV2Examples/LLJITWithInitializers. The Extensible RTTI system (https://reviews.llvm.org/D39111) that I posted a while back has landed. While this is not ORC specific, I expect it to be used in upcoming patches to allow ORC

Hi all, hi Lang It's a little late to report issues for release_50, but I just found that thing while porting my JitFromScratch examples to 5.0. This is a really nifty detail, but (if I'm not mistaken) the function signature of RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer::NotifyLoadedFtor is incorrect: $ grep -h -r -A 1 "using NotifyLoadedFtor"

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

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,

Hi All, I'm going to be making some API breaking changes to the ORC APIs, and to the RuntimeDyld class (which underlies MCJIT). The changes may affect MCJIT clients but are unlikely to. Where they do the fixes are likely to be trivial. ORC clients will be affected, but the fixes should also be straightforward. I have three upcoming changes in mind: 1) RuntimeDyld (the linker underlying

Hi Igor, not sure if that will work, but have you tried lli -jit-kind=orc-lazy ? The default is still MCJIT: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/tools/lli/lli.cpp#L88 On 13/01/2020 19:07, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > (+Lang for JIT/interpreter questions) > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 5:00 PM Igor Gomon via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org

Hi All, There was no update last week -- I'm still trying to get back into a regular schedule. Open-source changes since the last update were: (1) Some bug fixes for JITLink MachO / arm64 support (PAGE21/PAGEOFF12 now handle addends correctly). (2) llvm-jitlink now supports loading archives as well as relocatable objects. (3) llvm-jitlink now supports basic object-file level mocking and

Hi Stefan, I just tried the -jit-kind=orc-lazy with lli executable and it solves the problem on Ubuntu 18.04 (still does not work on Windows 10). But this solution is good enough for me now. Thanks again for your help! -- Best Regards, Igor ________________________________ From: Igor Gomon <giv_ua at hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7:38 PM To: Stefan Gränitz

Hi Geoff, hi Alex If you implement the GDB JIT Interface in your Orc JIT, this is in general possible (at least from the JIT's point of view) with both debuggers, GDB and LLDB. Please have a look at the example here: https://github.com/weliveindetail/JitFromScratch/tree/jit-debug/gdb-interface You will probably need to adjust the code depending on the LLVM version you are using. As described

Hi, I am looking to port my MCJIT based implementation to ORC. I have been reading up on the ORC tutorials, but am not clear on how to do following: I would like to discard everything other than the compiled code after compiling a module. A module may have more than one function in it - so I would like to retain all the compiled functions. I am okay with eager compilation - i.e. there is no need

Hi Lang, thanks for announcing. Would be great if you could send another short notice as soon as the actual patch exists. Best, Stefan Am 24.05.16 um 23:06 schrieb Lang Hames via llvm-dev: > Hi All, > > I'm going to be making some API breaking changes to the ORC APIs, and > to the RuntimeDyld class (which underlies MCJIT). The changes may > affect MCJIT clients but are unlikely

Maybe the easiest workaround would be overriding symbol resolution for the function name and redirect it to your own version in static code (and hope it has no bad side effect on your use case). I think when running 3rd party code, the only way to definitely avoid this kind of trouble is to never deallocate any code or data sections. Doug Binks mentioned that too in his cppcast about Runtime

Hi, On 22 September 2017 at 15:33, Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile at majumdar.org.uk> wrote: > I am looking to port my MCJIT based implementation to ORC. I have been > reading up on the ORC tutorials, but am not clear on how to do > following: > > I would like to discard everything other than the compiled code after > compiling a module. > A module may have more than one