similar to: ORC error: No callback manager available

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, We are making the move from legacy JIT (llvm-3.5.x) to ORC JIT and I am looking to recompile (and re-link) functions at runtime for an ARM platform (Odroid XU3) . I looked at OrcLazyJIT.cpp as a starting point. However, after going through the code, it appears that the createCompileCallbackMgr (llvm-3.8.0) / createLocalCompileCallbackManager (llvm-git) do not support an ARM triple yet.

I needed to be able to update stub pointers for hot functions that get recompiled in a lazy JIT that uses CompileOnDemandLayer. In order to do this I added a method that allows pointers to be updated but does not expose any of the other internals of the COD layer. Does anyone have a cleaner way to do this? Has something to facilitate this already been added? Would it be possible to merge this

Hi Sean, This is great, but it couples LogicalDylib too tightly to CompileOnDemandLayer. Does this alternative implementation of getLogicalModuleResourcesForSymbol work for you (unfortunately I don't have a local test case for this yet): LogicalModuleResources* getLogicalModuleResourcesForSymbol(const std::string &Name, bool

+Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com>, Master Regent of the Three <No, Two sir> JITs On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:31 PM Sean Ogden via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I needed to be able to update stub pointers for hot functions that get > recompiled in a lazy JIT that uses CompileOnDemandLayer. In order to do > this I added a method that allows pointers to

It does work. I just tested it on my JIT. Thanks! As for the part that couples them too tightly, would you recommend I just keep my own specialized version of CompileOnDemandLayer.h that includes this functionality, or do you have any ideas for a cleaner way to do this? I've noticed a couple of people asking for support for updating stub pointers for functions that are optimized at runtime,

Hi Sean, As for the part that couples them too tightly, would you recommend I just > keep my own specialized version of CompileOnDemandLayer.h that includes > this functionality, or do you have any ideas for a cleaner way to do this? My apologies - I wasn't very clear in my description of the issue. The only sense in which your original patch was tightly coupled was that it had

Dear everyone, The in-progress release notes for 3.7 [1,2] make it look like we didn't do very much over the past six months. Obviously that's not the case at all, so let's get them in shape! If you've been thinking "I should probably add this to the release notes at some point", now is the time :-) I have a list below of changes that might be worth mentioning. I

Hi, Please forgive me if my searching-fu has failed me in this case, but I''ve been unable to find any information on how people are going about monitoring and alerting regarding memory usage on Solaris hosts using ZFS. The problem is not that the ZFS ARC is using up the memory, but that the script Nagios is using to check memory usage simply sees, say 96% RAM used, and alerts. The

Hi, I am working on using LLVM to compile parts of longrunning PostgreSQL queries into native code for faster code execution. As postgres is, nearly, entirely written in C and has long-lived (5 years) supported branches (making the higher API stability important), I'm currently using the C API. I started out using MCJIT but it looks like that's slowly on the way out. My current concern

Hello everyone, I'm using the LLVM for a JIT-Client under Windows 64bit. I tried various stuff with it and noticed, that object files or libraries which are generated by the Visual Studio Compiler 2015 or 2017 will break the jitted code, when they are added to the process. I opened a bug for this a while ago (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39447) - sadly this bug will become a stopper

Hi All, Just a couple of updates this week: First: there is a preview patch up at https://reviews.llvm.org/D75838 to enable use of JITEventListeners in RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer. I've only done very preliminary testing on it, but was able to debug simple JIT'd programs on Linux using the GDB registration listener. If you've been wanting to move to ORC but held up by lack of debugger /

Hi, I'm working on a runtime autotuner that utilizes ORCv2 JIT (I'm closely tracking tip-of-tree), so linking new object files and patching in the new function(s) will happen frequently. One of the concerns my runtime system has is the ability to do one of the following: (1) replacement of the contents of a JITDylib with a new object file [to provide semi-space GC-style reclaiming], (2)

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

Russell Wallace via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > When writing a JIT compiler using LLVM, as I understand it, you can use two > alternative APIs, MCJIT and Orc. The latter offers lazy compilation. Would > it be accurate to say that if you want eager compilation - always compile > an entire module upfront - you should use MCJIT? +lang. My understanding is that

When writing a JIT compiler using LLVM, as I understand it, you can use two alternative APIs, MCJIT and Orc. The latter offers lazy compilation. Would it be accurate to say that if you want eager compilation - always compile an entire module upfront - you should use MCJIT? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

At the moment, neither the example code in the slides PDF, nor that in the new kaleidoscope tutorial, successfully compiles against the current version of ORC (in LLVM 8.0.0). Presumably because this is because ORC has changed since they were written. Is there any example code that works with the current version of ORC? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

Hi, I’m wondering if it’s possible to debug code JIT’ed with the newer ORC JIT. The LLVM documentation has a page at llvm.org/docs/DebuggingJITedCode.html <http://llvm.org/docs/DebuggingJITedCode.html> showing an example of using gdb to debug MCJIT’ed code, but has no mention of ORC JIT. From searching around online I’ve gotten the impression that ORC JIT does *not* support providing

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

Hi, I am trying out ORC v2 and facing some problems. I am using LLVM 8.0.1. I updated my ORC v1 implementation from 6.0 to 8.0 based on Kaleidoscope example (i.e. using Legacy classes) and that works fine. Now I am trying out ORC v2 apis, based on https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/examples/Kaleidoscope/BuildingAJIT/Chapter2/KaleidoscopeJIT.h. I have got it to compile and build.