similar to: Memory mapping assumptions in RuntimeDyld

Hi! On z/OS, there is the need to convert strings from EBCDIC to UTF-8 and vice versa. Using the POSIX iconv functions has some challenges, so I created a small wrapper around this functionality to get the same result on all platforms. This functionality is required for reading and writing GOFF object files and can also be used in the frontend. I put up the code on Phabricator

My understanding is that dynamically linking should pose no problem, but I am no lawyer. On Linux, glibc is also under LGPL license, and LLVM usually links against it. (There is really no need for us to depend on libiconv. If it is deemed to risky, then I can dropped it.) From: Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> To: Kai Peter Nacke <kai.nacke at de.ibm.com> Cc:

As part of IBM’s ongoing efforts to improve the z/OS ecosystem, our current plans involve adding support for the z/OS platform to LLVM and Clang. Our goal is to have a viable C and C++ LLVM compiler and runtime library that generates code for, and runs on z/OS. Long term, we expect to have a compiler and library that supports the platform more fully. We intend to support the native character

Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote on 10.06.2020 23:51:54: > From: Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> > To: Kai Peter Nacke <kai.nacke at de.ibm.com> > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Date: 10.06.2020 23:52 > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Adding support for the z/OS > platform to LLVM and clang

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Kai Peter Nacke > via llvm-dev > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 8:51 AM > To: Corentin <corentin.jabot at gmail.com> > Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Adding support for the z/OS platform to LLVM and > clang > > > > 2) Add

Open Letter to Developers, Is there any way you can cut through the mob scene at Homeland Defense with a powerful new encryption/decryption formula? The government cryptography bunch are stuck in symmetry and asymmetry and are deaf/dumb/blind to supersymmetry. When it's so easy to line up a supersymmetrical hypercube fractal-to-fractal, pair-to-pair, quantum-to-quantum and slice through

Hi, Can anyone tell me something about mmap and vm_protect on ARM+Apple systems? I'm working on a new memory manager implementation for MCJIT and I want to replace calls to Memory::AllocateRWX with calls to Memory::allocateMappedMemory, possibly still with the RWX flags. However, looking at the Memory::AllocateRWX implementation I see that it's jumping through some hoops in the case

Hi Andy, On Nov 16, 2012, at 1:56 PM, "Kaylor, Andrew" <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Can anyone tell me something about mmap and vm_protect on ARM+Apple systems? Some. :) > > I’m working on a new memory manager implementation for MCJIT and I want to replace calls to Memory::AllocateRWX with calls to Memory::allocateMappedMemory, possibly still

The attached patch prevents MappedMemoryTest.BasicWrite and MappedMemoryTest.MultipleWrite (both in unittests/Support/MemoryTest.cpp) from running if the correct protection flags for memory allocation are not set. Without this patch, the two tests fail when I run "make check-all" on a mips octeon board. The problem with the current code is that it allocates a block of memory without

Hi David, Following up on the problems we discussed yesterday on IRC regarding TLS with MCJIT, I've put together the attached experimental patch. This patch makes three changes: 1. SectionMemoryManager is changed to request memory below the 2GB boundary by default. 2. sys::Memory::allocateMappedMemory is changed to set the MAP_32BIT flag if the requested "near" block

"ARM Darwin can't do this. Memory is never allowed to be both writable and executable at the same time." That seems very sensible. So do the JIT engines just not work there now? Currently both MCJIT and JIT are using AllocateRWX which on that platform mmap's the memory as RX, then vm_protect's it as RX+VM_PROT_COPY, then vm_protect's it as RW. My best guess is that

Can you try it without the MAP_32BIT part? It won't be as reliable, but if the memory addresses it is asking for are available it could work. I agree that there are good reasons not to lock in on a single memory address, but I'm curious as to what other obstacles might be lurking behind the ones we know about. If the patch works when memory is loaded below 2GB then it would be possible

Look good. -Andy From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Akira Hatanaka Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 1:33 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: [LLVMdev] [PATCH][Review request] MappedMemoryTest: Prevent tests from running if read flag is not set. The attached patch prevents MappedMemoryTest.BasicWrite and

Hello, as of Jul 9, the LNT build bot on SystemZ shows red. The problem occurs in the "setup lit" test, which fails due to: Processing dependencies for LNT==0.4.2.dev0 Searching for typing Reading https://pypi.org/simple/typing/ Downloading

Hi, Unfortunately, I can't compile this patch. MAP_32BIT is a Linuxism that doesn't work on FreeBSD (or OS X, or, as far as I can tell, anywhere except Linux). We can consider adding something similar to FreeBSD (although I'm hesitant to encourage anything that increases the determinism of the memory layout of JITed code, for security reasons), but it doesn't seem ideal.

Without the MSP_32BIT part, I consistently hit this assertion: Assertion failed: ((Type == ELF::R_X86_64_32 && (Value <= UINT32_MAX)) || (Type == ELF::R_X86_64_32S && ((int64_t)Value <= INT32_MAX && (int64_t)Value >= INT32_MIN))), function resolveX86_64Relocation, file ../lib/ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/RuntimeDyldELF.cpp, line 222. David On 9 May 2013, at

Hello, as discussed here in more detail: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81583 the introduction of the C++20 [[no_unique_address]] attribute exposes an ABI issue on platforms that require special handling for structs/classes that are "equivalent" to a single floating-point member (or in some cases, a "homogeneous" set of floating-point members). This is because we can now for the

Hi David, I believe that assertion indicates that something didn't get loaded into the lower 2GB of address space. That is, the memory manager isn't allocating memory in that range. I'm sure there must be a way to allocate memory in that range on FreeBSD. The system loader has to do it, right? I just don't know what makes it happen. -Andy -----Original Message----- From: Dr

Can you elaborate on why MCJIT TLS support needs code in the low 2 GB? What piece of data do you need to be reachable? It sounds like this was discussed on IRC, but I'm curious. Does the MCJIT even have the reachability problems of the old JIT? If you build an object file in memory, presumably you can measure it and then allocate +x memory for it all at once, instead of the old model of

Yes, this is correct code address accessing bad data address. However, there is no other relocation before .text or near it. I'll send you the full debug printout, maybe you'll note something. The problem could be result of something else entirely else than the linker such as some library initialization code that by chance worked with smaller code but fails now. I need to debug and see