similar to: Trouble with ORCv2 Tutorial

Hi Praveen, Thanks for pointing that out :) That's my mistake. I might have been misidentifying the issue with the assert statement. With those fixes made function calls seem to all call the first function called in the REPL. For example: ready> def fib(n) if (n < 2) then n else fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2); ... ready> fib(40); Evaluated to 102334155.000000 ready> fib(10); # This

HI Lang, Thanks a bunch for the reply. That worked great for on my end and is a pretty tiny change. Really appreciate all the work you've done on this new JIT stuff and putting together those great tutorials. Zeke On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:07 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Zeke, > > Thanks for pointing this out. > > You're right: the issue is

Hi All, I've added a very basic set of C bindings for OrcV2 in 633ea07200e, with an example in llvm/example/OrcV2Examples/BasicOrcV2CBindings. Development of the C APIs is being tracked by http://llvm.org/PR31103 -- if you're interested in C APIs for OrcV2 please get involved. I would especially appreciate feedback and patches from C API users: I don't have a use case for the C APIs

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, The time has finally come to remove OrcV1. I expect to remove it some time after the 14th of September. This will remove all the legacy layers, legacy utilities, the old Orc C bindings, and OrcMCJITReplacement. ExecutionEngine and MCJIT will *not* be affected by this. I had hoped to have removable code enabled before deleting OrcV1, but it turns out that implementing removable code in

Hi, Lang As a starter using LLVM JIT to improve OLAP execution engine performance, I'm very glad to hear that. I can't find some useful document help me get start to use the new ORC JIT API quickly. Only can find some examples how to use it, but don't know the internal from low level, and very blurred to design a clearly JIT toolset. Hope more tutorials add in and help ORC JIT more

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, On 2020-09-30 17:52:46 -0700, Lang Hames wrote: > I've just realised that we're going to need a change to the definition > generator API in the long term: Right now it is called under the session > lock, but we want to shift to calling it outside the lock and passing a > lookup-continuation. This would allow definition discovery to take an > arbitrarily long time

Heyho, Recently I tried out the ORCv2 JIT, especially the LLJIT. I gotta say, that I really like the new interface and the way you use it! However there is one thing I'm missing. I wrote a small bit code file, which should force having a global constructor. int wuff(); __declspec(noinline) int miau() { printf("Huhuhu"); return wuff(); } const int x = miau(); When I

Dear Geoff, As for as ORCv2 is concerned, there is no event listener facility available as of now. Thanks On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 01:21, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > +Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> the author/owner of the ORC JIT - though > he's out of teh office at the moment I think, so might not get a reply > until the new year

Hi Lang, On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:03, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > When you say your code is not getting optimized, do you mean that IR optimizations are not being applied, or that codegen optimizations are not being applied? > > What do you see if you dump the modules before/after running the pass manager on them, like this: > > dbgs() << "Before

Hi All, This week I've been focused on removing some of the blockers for people transitioning from ORCv1 to ORCv2. Issue #1 (http://llvm.org/PR40074, http://llvm.org/PR44337): When LLVM codegens floating point constants for COFF we produce named constant pool entries of the form __real@<bitval>. These are stored in COFF COMDAT sections [1] which allow duplicate symbol definitions to

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

I too am in the process of porting our ORC code to ORC v2 and LLJIT. The new API allows me to remove much of our own code, which can only be a good thing. I sometimes get crashes, however, when executing my JIT compiled function, so I thought I would use gdb to try to figure out what is going wrong. And I am dismayed to see that there seems to be no way to provide an event listener to register

Hi Andres, I also want to highlight the necessity of some form of C API, that others > already have. > <snip> > It's fine if the set of "somewhat stable" C APIs doesn't provide all the > possible features, though. Ok. This got me thinking about what a simple LLJIT API should look like. I have posted a sketch of a possible API on http://llvm.org/PR31103 . I

Hi Lang, On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 23:26, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: >> I also get this message: >> JIT session error: Symbols not found: { raise_error } > > > Ahh -- I see the problem. The DynamicLibrarySearchGenerator is using the getAddressOfSymbol method, which (under the hood) is basically issuing an appropriate dlsym lookup, and that does not find

Hi, On 2020-09-29 13:58:35 -0700, Lang Hames wrote: > > Have the basics working. Should I open a PR to your branch for what I > > got so far? > Sounds good to me. Done, https://github.com/lhames/llvm-project/pull/2 . > The first is to expose more of symbol resolution. Postgres can be > > extended via dynamically loaded libraries, and we need to be careful to > >

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

Hi All, Everything is landing all at once, just not in the mainline... yet. As discussed in http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-September/144885.html: OrcV1 will be removed very soon. I have posted a branch with the removal, "orcv1-removal", in my llvm fork at https://github.com/lhames/llvm-project. In addition to removing OrcV1, the orcv1-removal branch also contains a

Hi, On 2020-09-30 19:00:45 -0700, Lang Hames wrote: > Ok -- I'll make getting the new lookup API working a priority then. Cool. > > I see a memory leak with OrcV2 that I didn't see with V1. I'm not yet > > sure where exactly they're coming from. Possible that I'm just missing a > > step somewhere. Or something around the removable code support