similar to: New ORC v2 LLJIT - global variables

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 500 matches similar to: "New ORC v2 LLJIT - global variables"

2020 Apr 20
2
ORC JIT Weekly #12
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
2020 Oct 01
2
OrcV1 removal
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
2020 Jan 29
3
Question about LLVM LLJIT Compile time
Hi, We are using the new LLJIT class in our compiler. We have not been successful using the parallel JIT feature. When we tried it previously on multiple modules, our compile-time increased significantly. I don't know if we are using it incorrectly, or that we miss out on optimizations we get when running on a single merged module, but it hasn't worked for us yet. We are pretty far behind
2020 Oct 01
2
OrcV1 removal
Hi, On 2020-09-30 21:31:33 -0700, Lang Hames wrote: > I've taken a first shot at hooking RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer up to the > ResourceTracker API in 7436b2ab2428. Could you let me know whether that > fixes the leak you were seeing? It did improve the situation significantly, thanks! There's still a smaller leak, unfortunately. The function comments for modules say that: /** *
2019 May 12
2
JIT compilation with LLVM
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
2018 Jul 01
2
I've seen OrcJit is under overhaul, and also the MCJIT, so what's the plan?
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:
2018 Jun 25
2
runStaticConstructorsDestructors() causes crash on exit
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: >
2015 Jan 14
4
[LLVMdev] New JIT APIs
On 01/14/2015 02:33 PM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com > <mailto:lhames at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > To confirm - I have no plans to remove MCJIT. I don't want > to change any behavior for existing clients. The new stuff > is opt-in. >
2015 Jan 14
3
[LLVMdev] New JIT APIs
Hi Dave, To confirm - I have no plans to remove MCJIT. I don't want to change any >> behavior for existing clients. The new stuff is opt-in. >> > > Why not? We did work to remove the legacy JIT in favor of MCJIT for the > usual reasons (less code/maintenance burden/etc) - it'd seem unfortunate to > then go back to maintaining two JITs again. > > You mention
2015 Jan 14
3
[LLVMdev] New JIT APIs
Hi Philip, In terms of the overall idea, I like what your proposing. However, I want > to be very clear: you are not planning on removing any functionality from > the existing (fairly low level) MCJIT interface right? > To confirm - I have no plans to remove MCJIT. I don't want to change any behavior for existing clients. The new stuff is opt-in. > We've built our own
2019 May 08
2
Reuse llvm::ExecutionEngine
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
2013 Oct 14
3
[LLVMdev] A weird, reproducable problem with MCJIT
Hi, I had similar problems with EH in ELF in RTDyldMemoryManager::registerEHFrames() calling __register_frame(). I'm not sure these problems are related to this problem since your crash happens in RuntimeDyldMachO::registerEHFrames() in its own processFDE (there are two functions named processFDE(), one in RuntimeDyldMachO.cpp and one in RTDyldMemoryManager.cpp) *before*
2017 Sep 25
2
Clang/LLVM JIT - When to use "registerEHFrames()"
Hello friendly LLVM-World, because I don't know if I had send my problem to the correct Mailing-List, I will send my problem to this address too. I'm not subscribed to this list, so please add my in CC if you response. Kind regards Björn From: Bjoern Gaier/HE/HORIBA To: Clang Dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
2017 Sep 28
2
Clang/LLVM JIT - When to use "registerEHFrames()"
Hello Stefan, I'm happy someone replied to my problem! Many thanks! To be honest... I didn't understood much of your mail. I'm a beginner with the JIT - so I will explain what I've done. To manage the memory and resolve symbols, I'm using my own Resolver-Class, which overloads the allocation and the findSymbol functions. I've noticed today, that the
2017 Sep 27
0
Clang/LLVM JIT - When to use "registerEHFrames()"
Hi Björn To first answer your questionin the subject: For x86 registerEHFrames() is only a stub. For x86_64 registerEHFrames() is implemented properly in RuntimeDyldCOFFX86_64, calling MemMgr.registerEHFrames() for each EH frame section. It should be called and work out of the box without your involvement, but unfortunately it won't solve your issue. All the essential information is there in
2019 May 31
2
Commit 93af05e03e05d2f85b5a7e20ec3a3a543584d84f causes warning
Hello, After commit 93af05e03e05d2f85b5a7e20ec3a3a543584d84f we have new warning but only if compiled with GCC: In file included from /path/to/llvm/include/llvm/ExecutionEngine/Orc/ExecutionUtils.h:19:0, from /path/to/llvm/lib/ExecutionEngine/Orc/OrcMCJITReplacement.h:23, from /path/to/llvm/lib/ExecutionEngine/Orc/OrcMCJITReplacement.cpp:9:
2013 Oct 14
3
[LLVMdev] A weird, reproducable problem with MCJIT
I switched my Common Lisp compiler to use MCJIT on the weekend and ran into a weird problem compiling one particular function. It crashes with an EXC_BAD_ACCESS error in MCJIT::finalizeObject when calling processFDE. The weird part is that the function does not appear to do anything special and I've whittled it down to the minimum size that still causes the crash. If I remove even one
2013 Oct 14
0
[LLVMdev] A weird, reproducable problem with MCJIT
Hi Christian, Thanks for sharing this. Yaron Keren has been investigating some problems in the EH frame registration code recently, and I think this may be related. It at least sounds similar to the type of variations in behavior based on code size that Yaron was seeing. -Andy -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of
2017 Sep 28
0
Clang/LLVM JIT - When to use "registerEHFrames()"
> I tried loading the "msvcrt.lib" as a archive. That was... a bad idea! > I get a Exception while loading: > Assertion failed: ((int64_t)Result <= INT32_MAX) && "Relocation > overflow", file > \lib\executionengine\runtimedyld\Targets/RuntimeDyldCOFFX86_64.h, line 81 It's a limitation of the COFF/PE format and unrelated to exceptions. This patch
2018 Jun 21
2
runStaticConstructorsDestructors() causes crash on exit
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