similar to: ORC JIT Weekly #12

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 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 2020-10-01 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

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: /** *

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?

Hi Andres, Cool!I assume this works on "non-native" jitlink platforms as well? Or > just mach? This framework is totally materializer agnostic -- It works for ObjectLinkingLayer (JITLink), RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer (RuntimeDyld), and even materializers that aren't emitted via a linker (e.g. stubs and callbacks). Looks like there's not yet a C API yet - not a problem, just

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 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:

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 All, The Kaleidoscope tutorials have now been updated on the orcv1-removal branch. I will try to summarise the state of the work and provide some examples in the ORC JIT Weekly mailout tomorrow. The short version is that I think this is ready to land on the mainline. If anyone wants to check out the OrcV1 removal branch and provide feedback now is the time. Otherwise I will aim to land the

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

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 All, The general initializer support patch has landed (see 85fb997659b plus follow up fixes). Some quick background: Until now ORC, like MCJIT, has handled static initializer discovery by searching for llvm.global_ctors and llvm.global_dtors arrays in the IR added to the JIT. This approach suffers from several drawbacks: 1) It provides no built-in support for other program representations:

Jonas, At this point, the DFA packetizer models a simple VLIW architecture and does not accommodate multiple stages. That's the reason for the behavior you're seeing. -Anshu --- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation *From:*llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jonas

Hi Jonas, > It is interesting to find this in the ARM backend, considering your answer. The ARM backend doesn't use the DFA packetizer. It's only used by Hexagon. At this point, there is no plan to address thisin the DFA packetizer since none of the supported targets needthe functionality. Thanks -Anshu --- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,

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

Hi, I looked a bit through the mail archives, and found this question answered in Oct 2011 (see below). It is interesting to find this in the ARM backend, considering your answer. Can you give more information about for example is this a temporary deficiency in the DFAPacketizer? What is the IIC_iMOVi itinerary doing below? Thanks, Jonas Thu Oct 6 15:11:25 CDT 2011: Hello Hal. > Is there

Hi Andres, Ok -- I've added some API for this in 438db0719681: You can get the string pool from the execution session with LLVMOrcExecutionSessionGetSymbolStringPool, then clear that with LLVMOrcSymbolStringPoolClearDeadEntries. -- Lang. On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 5:34 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andres, > > Oooh. I think I see. For various reasons the symbol

Hi all, First of all, I want to say that I really appreciate all the work that's gone into LLVM, clang and the ORC API. I would be very unlikely to be doing my current project if they weren't available. I'm using the ORC API to JIT some C code (soon to be C++) on Windows. (I was on LLVM 8.0.0 but it didn't handle the 'allocator' attribute so I upgraded to LLVM 9.0.0.)

Hi Anshu, Would there be any interest in extending this algorithm to handling more extensive models, such as VLIW scheduling based on FU's and bundle space... ie handle multiple stages ? I might do it and commit, if there is acceptance and guidance... Jonas ________________________________ From: Anshuman Dasgupta [mailto:adasgupt at codeaurora.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:47 PM