similar to: [LLVMdev] Stub function generation in MCJIT using lli.

Hi Andrew, I used the latest code from trunk. GlobalSymbolTable is being used in MCJIT. I guess it wasn't clear from the proposal that the user program will be modified to indicate that the callback should happen at that point in the code. The objective is to call some of the functions which belong to lli or the ExecutionEngine. Thanks, Sumeeth On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Kaylor,

Unless I'm missing something, indeed addGlobalMapping should not work with MCJIT. MCJIT does not consult EEState.getGlobalAddressMap when resolving symbols. Instead it uses RTDyldMemoryManager::getSymbolAddress which checks with DynamicLibrary::SearchForAddressOfSymbol, so Andy's suggestion of DynamicLibrary::addSymbol is better as it should work with both JIT and MCJIT. Another options

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:39 PM, sumeeth kc <sumeethkc at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to have your opinions on this. > > *Problem:* > > Currently, there are no ways to perform hypercalls into LLVM (they > transfer execution from the program being executed to the LLVM > infrastructure to perform compilation). The goal of this project is to >

Hey, I have a situation where in I need to intercept a call to a particular function and return a pointer to a separate implementation of that function using JIT. The scenario is like this: 1. A test code or client code calls a function A() for which a dummy implementation is provided in a library which the test code/client links with during compilation. 2. I create the .bc using -emit-llvm and

Hello, I would like to have your opinions on this. *Problem:* Currently, there are no ways to perform hypercalls into LLVM (they transfer execution from the program being executed to the LLVM infrastructure to perform compilation). The goal of this project is to cleanly integrate an API into the LLVM code/execution engine to create custom callbacks. The “lli” executable should allow having a

Hi Olivier, On Feb 25, 2010, at 14:10, Olivier Meurant wrote: > Hi Garrison, > > I finally come back from holidays and take time to watch your patch. > > I must say that I largely prefer this version over the previous one ! I like the reuse of getLazyFunctionStub, but I don't know if the forceEmitFunctionStub is still needed ? JIT::forceEmitFunctionStub(...) was created to

Are you using the latest code from trunk? I didn't think the latest code used the address mapping in the ExecutionEngine base class. Of course, if people are depending on this it might be something that should be fixed if it isn't working. -Andy From: Caldarale, Charles R [mailto:Chuck.Caldarale at unisys.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 10:54 AM To: Kaylor, Andrew; sumeeth kc;

Hey Everyone, I understood this a little differently (well, I do have direct contact with Sumeeth given that we both work in the same lab). Allow me to try and explain his proposal. We are trying to optimise out instructions from a program (JIT-compiled OS Kernels or JIT-compiled Web Server code) during run time and we have this hypothesis that some of the decisions are best taken by the

[sidenote: Please try to avoid extraneous whitespace and line wrapping changes in your patches. It makes it harder to see what you're actually changing] On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Olivier, > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 14:10, Olivier Meurant wrote: > > Hi Garrison, > > I finally come back from holidays and take

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Kaylor, Andrew > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [Proposal] Adding callback mechanism to Execution Engines > If the function is in a statically linked module, you need to do something to explicitly expose it. With > the older JIT engine you can use addGlobalMapping as Yaron suggests, but I

Hi Jeffrey, On Feb 26, 2010, at 16:02, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > [sidenote: Please try to avoid extraneous whitespace and line wrapping changes in your patches. It makes it harder to see what you're actually changing] Sorry just saw some preexisting code was not in 80 columns. > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi

Hi Garrison, I finally come back from holidays and take time to watch your patch. I must say that I largely prefer this version over the previous one ! I like the reuse of getLazyFunctionStub, but I don't know if the forceEmitFunctionStub is still needed ? I thought about JIT and modules, and I wonder if we don't need to take it another way. Now we can create multiples JIT. What if we

I didn't seen any roadmap and plan about OrcJit & MCJIT. And would OrcJIT be stablize in version 7.0? Or latter version? Would MCJIT be removed in source tree, when? -- 此致 礼 罗勇刚 Yours sincerely, Yonggang Luo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

This is the second version of a patch, which I recently attached to bug 2606, whose original version was modified to reflect the lists comments. Also please note the comment at the end of this email, which basically questions whether this bug is really a bug. 1) To solve the foreign Module GlobalVariable problem, I modified JIT::getOrEmitGlobalVariable(...) to directly attempt to map a found

Hi Sumeeth, I'm not sure I understand what your new mechanism is supposed to add. You can already call functions defined in the host program from generated code. The Kaleidoscope tutorial does this. If the function you want to call is defined in a module that is dynamically loaded and you are using the default memory manager all you need to do is declare a prototype for the function in

Hi all, Is there any way to generate the binary code for a whole module at once? Currently I always get lazy compilation one function at a time. The reason I would like to generate the whole module at once is because I create some functions at run-time and then minimize the memory footprint by deallocating all LLVM objects. I've written my own JITMemoryManager to ensure that the binary

On 2008-04-02, at 05:55, Gary Benson wrote: > I've been working on making a non-architecture specific port of > OpenJDK these past few months. It's interpreter-only at present, > and very slow, and I'd like to use LLVM to add some kind of JIT to it. > > So far I'm just trying to figure out how it would all slot in. The > existing code in OpenJDK is written

Hi, In the process of looking at whether it's reasonable to make ARM use MCJIT by default, I was trying to check that x86-64 uses MCJIT by default (ie, lli doesn't need an explicit -use-mcjit to be passed). However, after instrumenting the constructors for both JIT and MCJIT, either lli doesn't default to using MCJIT on x86-64 or The construction/non-construction of a JIT/MCJIT object

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I've been reading the headers and http://llvm.org/releases/2.1/docs/ProgrammersManual.html and I'm still confused about a pretty fundamental point... who is expected to clean up various objects when we're finished with them, and when? Let's say I've created a module, retrieved a bunch of types, created a function, a basic block,

Sure, you can turn off lazy compilation. Take a look at NoLazyCompilation in lli.cpp. Evan On Jul 7, 2008, at 6:08 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi all, > > Is there any way to generate the binary code for a whole module at > once? Currently I always get lazy compilation one function at a time. > > The reason I would like to generate the whole module at once is >