similar to: MCJIT versus Orc

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

Right, but is there any known use case where Orc's flexibility allows something to be done that couldn't be with MCJIT, apart from lazy compilation? On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Russell Wallace via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > When writing a JIT compiler using LLVM, as I understand it, you

Thanks! Currently using MCJIT. But migration to ORC is on my TODO list. - Paweł On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:30 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > Option (1) and (3) are very similar, but using custom resolution (option > 3) guarantees that JIT'd code can't accidentally end up depending on > functions in your JIT that you didn't mean to

Hi LLVM, Lang. I'm looking for a advice here. And I truly understand very little what the relocations are and how they work. The problem I want to solve is the case where a jitted code has to call back the host application to query additional data. I can think of 3 possible solutions: 1. Use built-in relocation resolver (in default memory manager?) and allow the JIT to find the

Hi, For a new language I am developing (in the very early stages, nothing public posted yet) I would like to able to use a JIT for several purposes: 1) Create a functional REPL as is done is done with in the Kaleidoscope tutorial. 2) Be able to interpret my language in addition to compiling. 3) While compiling, be able to execute arbitrary code at compile time. The simple case will be to

Thanks Praveen. Is it suitable for LLVM 7.0.1 ? Apart from flexibility, do we see any compile time improvements as well with ORC? On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:31 PM Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > MCJIT hopefully will be removed in subsequent releases. I think the last > release version is more suitable. > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 11:45, Ashok

Which llvm version is more suitable to switch to orc - vs - mcjit. We don't have requirement of lazy compilation, in that case, is it worth switching? We do have requirement of ability to serialize machine code and reuse it later. MCJit seems to provide that option - how well is that supported in ORC ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

yeah i m concerned about jit compilation time.. On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:57 PM Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes I think so.. Could you please tell me in which context (compile time > improvement)? That is whether you are interested in knowing whether having > ORC instead of MCJIT, will increase your LLVM Build time or you are > concerned

Hello LLVM-Mailing list, in the past I was using the MCJIT (if I understand it correctly) to load IR modules, compile them and execute them. The speciality of this JIT was, that it was writing the compiled code into a shared memory - for a different process to execute them. For that task the JIT used a 'custom' memory manager, memory mapping and also resolved undefined references itself.

Hi Kevin, Koffie, We will start migrating to ORC for next release, but for now, this release > invoke delete after remove right? MCJIT's removeModule method does not delete the module. You'll need to do that manually. OrcMCJITReplacement is a bug-for-bug compatible implementation of MCJIT using ORC components, so it does not free the memory either. Does this mean MCJIT is

Hi All, I'm going to be making some API breaking changes to the ORC APIs, and to the RuntimeDyld class (which underlies MCJIT). The changes may affect MCJIT clients but are unlikely to. Where they do the fixes are likely to be trivial. ORC clients will be affected, but the fixes should also be straightforward. I have three upcoming changes in mind: 1) RuntimeDyld (the linker underlying

Hi Koffie, I'd highly recommend switching to ORC from MCJIT. It is much more flexible when it comes to memory-management. 1. I took the approach of 1 execution engine with multiple modules (I'm not > removing modules once they have been added). During profiling, I noticed > that the memory usage is high with a lot of code. How can I reduce the > memory usage? Is one execution

Hi Bjoern, CC'ing Lang hames For questions, 1. In short yes, you can replace the memory manager, default one provided is section memory manager. 2. If you mean by " address of already compiled code", yes you can do that. Like this JITDylib.define(absoluteSymbols, ( Your_own_symbol , JITTargetAddress(Address of function))), now ORC can resolve all the references to Your_own_symbol

Hi Lang, thanks for announcing. Would be great if you could send another short notice as soon as the actual patch exists. Best, Stefan Am 24.05.16 um 23:06 schrieb Lang Hames via llvm-dev: > Hi All, > > I'm going to be making some API breaking changes to the ORC APIs, and > to the RuntimeDyld class (which underlies MCJIT). The changes may > affect MCJIT clients but are unlikely

Hi, I think ExecutionEngine as a common interface for both Interpreter and MCJIT is almost useless in the current form. There are separated methods in ExecutionEngine for similar or the same features provided by Interpreter and MCJIT, i.e. to get a pointer to function you should call getPointerToFunction() for Interpreter or getFunctionAddress() for MCJIT. Personally, I'm using MCJIT and

Nice! Let me try to answer some questions, Before that I have to mention this is ORC version 2 APIs and this is where the project is moving forward. JITDylib is the symbol table, basically for a JIT Symbol it have an associated materializers, (you can think of it like an entity that generate the address for that symbol), Example: compiler are materializers. So to add symbols to your own JIT you

I'm on llvm 3.8.1 and was wondering if there's a memory leak in the removeModule impl of mcjit. In the tutorial http://llvm.org/releases/3.8.1/docs/tutorial/LangImpl4.html a module is removed from the Jit by invoking removeModule. According to the tutorial: "Its API is very simple:: addModule adds an LLVM IR module to the JIT, making its functions available for execution;

When using ORC JIT, I'm having trouble with external function resolution (that is, of a function defined in the app, with C linkage). I add a declaration for the function to my IR, and when I use MCJIT, it finds it and all is well, But when I use ORC JIT (I *think* correctly, at least it closely matches what I see in the tutorial), I get an LLVM error, "Program used external function

Context: We use MCJIT to generate machine code in our LLVM based JIT compiler. The code generation process has roughly 5 steps: 0. Generate and optimize LLVM IR. 1. Call generateCodeForModule on the output of (0) to translate LLVM IR to machine code. 2. Figure out the final locations for the code and data generated by MCJIT using an allocator specific to our runtime. Make

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > > > There are two other Orc-based JITs in tree. One is the MCJIT replacement, > which you'll find in lib/ExecutionEngine/Orc/OrcMCJITReplacement.*, and the > other is OrcLazyJIT, which you'll find in tools/lli/OrcLazyJIT.*. The > former is just emulating MCJIT's behaviour, the latter is