similar to: Assertion triggered when running simple hello-world code on iOS device using ORC/LLLazyJIT

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 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 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 ==

Hello, I recently hit an issue when JIT'ing my generated IR using llvm::orc::LLJIT. My IR contains the following definition of a global variable: > $_ZZ23TestStaticVarInFunctionbE1x = comdat any > @_ZZ23TestStaticVarInFunctionbE1x = linkonce_odr dso_local global i32 123, > comdat, align 4 > And in my host process, there exists the same symbol. I would expect LLJIT to resolve the

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, 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:

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?

Hi All, A preliminary version of removable code support has been posted for review in https://reviews.llvm.org/D79312. This patch removes all uses of VModuleKeys (except for Legacy layers) and takes a whole-JITDylib-at-a-time approach to removal. Removing whole JITDylibs requires more work from clients (compared to per-module removal): Modules to be removed must be placed into throw-away

Michael, In lld, we have places that used nested a ErrorOr<std::unique_ptr<xx>> and I often hit compiler errors that require breaking up expressions to work around. Do you have suggestions on how to code the following simple examples to not error? Can some of these be fixed in ErrorOr.h? Or am I totally not getting something? -Nick struct Foo { void doit(); };

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, I've listed the current topics of interest below, along with some notes on each. We only have 30 minutes so we'll barely scratch the surface of these during the BoF itself. My main aims are for you to meet each other, identify potential areas of collaboration, identify things that I can do to unblock you, and get the ball rolling on some conversations that we can continue on the

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

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 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

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > Michael, > > In lld, we have places that used nested a ErrorOr<std::unique_ptr<xx>> and > I often hit compiler errors that require breaking up expressions to work > around. Do you have suggestions on how to code the following simple > examples to not error? Can some of these be

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 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

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

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'