similar to: OrcV1 removal

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 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 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, 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

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 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, 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, 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

Hi, On 2020-09-25 16:38:41 -0700, Andres Freund via llvm-dev wrote: > On 2020-09-24 16:34:30 -0700, Lang Hames wrote: > > If anyone wants to check out the OrcV1 removal branch and provide feedback > > now is the time. Otherwise I will aim to land the work in the mainline > > early next week. > > I'm trying to get it to work with postgres. Unfortunately this week

Hi folks, I'm working on migrating a JIT compiler from the old ORCv1 JIT APIs to the newer ORCv2 ones and am having some trouble getting the code from chapter 1 of the "Building a JIT" [1] tutorial working properly. I have previously walked through the "My First Langauge" [2] tutorial and that went smoothly using the provided JIT class, but using the one from the JIT

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 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 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 Lang, On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:15, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > >> 1) Can 0 ever be a valid VModuleKey? How can one reliably detect an invalid VModuleKey? > > > I believe 0 was a valid VModuleKey in ORCv1. The assertion is checking the the VModuleKey is present in the LogicalDylibs map. That means that you have to have used that key in an addModule call,

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, 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 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'

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