similar to: ORC and MCJIT clients: Heads up, API breaking changes in the pipeline.

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

Agreed, that sounds like the best plan. I'll look into moving LLILC to ORC. Thanks -Joseph From: Russell Hadley Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 8:13 PM To: Lang Hames; Joseph Tremoulet Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] MCJit interface question Hey Joseph, What Lang said made me wonder. Is it the right time for us (LLILC) to move to ORC? The long term plan was to go there but

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

Yes, I’m handling all internal and external relocations manually in NotifyLoadedFtor and I already verified that I get the behavior I need if I comment out the call to resolveRelocations. I would like to reuse ObjectLinkingLayer::addObjectSet (which eventually calls RuntimeDyld::loadObject), which has the right calls to the memory manager and also RuntimeDyld::registerEHFrames. I understand that

Hi Eugene, Sorry for the delayed reply. Custom relocations weren't something I had in mind when I designed Orc, so they raise some interesting design questions which I don't have good answers to yet. (E.g. The interface for the Orc layer concept assumes that there's a RuntimeDyld instance embedded at the bottom of the stack. That's why addModuleSet takes a MemoryManager and

Hi On Windows 10 when using a debug build of LLVM 10, I get this assertion failure: Assertion failed: (KV.second.getFlags() & ~WeakFlags) == (I->second & ~WeakFlags) && "Resolving symbol with incorrect flags", file C:\work\github\llvm-10.0.0.src\lib\ExecutionEngine\Orc\Core.cpp, line 450 The same failure occurred in LLVM 9 too: Assertion failed: I->second ==

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

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

Thanks so much! This seems to do the trick. I would have spun my wheels for a long time before discovering all of this, wow. Do I even want to know what additional chickens need to be sacrificed to get this to work on Windows? -- lg > On May 18, 2016, at 1:52 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Larry, > > You're basically there, but you're hitting

Hey Joseph, What Lang said made me wonder. Is it the right time for us (LLILC) to move to ORC? The long term plan was to go there but this could be our forcing function. -R From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Lang Hames Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 2:23 PM To: Joseph Tremoulet Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] MCJit interface

Hi all, So I’m also working on LLILC. Specifically, I have been working on a JITEventListener to pass debug line info to the CoreCLR EE. With Joe’s change, I’ve lost the ability (or as far as I can tell) to attach an event listener. Is there a way within Orc to do the sorts of things that the JITEventListeners do in MCJIT? How would I go about adding a layer to add debugging support? Thanks,

Hi, I think I need to make a small change to the MCJit interface, and would like some feedback on what the most appropriate option would be. I'm working on LLILC (a jit for the CoreCLR built on MCJit, which creates one module for each MSIL method, containing the main function and zero or more EH handler functions extracted from the MSIL method). The CoreCLR requires the jit to notify it of

Hi Larry, Thanks so much! This seems to do the trick. I would have spun my wheels for > a long time before discovering all of this, wow. No worries. :) I'll try to keep this in mind and make sure I address it in future Kaleidoscope tutorial chapters - these issues tripped me up the first time I encountered them too. Do I even want to know what additional chickens need to be sacrificed

When we were using MCJIT, I could do this: // Attach the event listener Context.EE->RegisterJITEventListener( LLILCJitEventListener::createLLILCJitEventListener( new LLILCJitEventWrapper(&Context))); The event listeners listened for when an object is emitted (NotifyObjectEmitted), and that’s when we’d go through and extract debug info from the ObjectFile. Now, I imagine

>> llvm::sys::DynamicLibrary::LoadLibraryPermanently(nullptr) This is one is a bit tricky and hard to find. I spent quiet some time digging into MC and ORC JIT execution engines trying to find what makes them work. The problem is that this trick (LoadLibraryPermanently) happens inside of EngineBuilder, despite that the functionality belongs to a JIT engine itself, not to the builder. I

Hi Joseph, There are several reasons that a client might want to access the object before it's loaded, so a general API like #2 seems like the way to go. To support this in MCJIT you can add this to the event listener API. Orc clients can already do this by adding a custom object-file layer. - Lang. On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Joseph Tremoulet <jotrem at microsoft.com> wrote:

Hi Stefan, Thanks for your reply. I tried running my simple example on Linux using lli and it does work fine. So I think the best long-term solution is to migrate my code to the new lazy orc jit. Unfortunately, even the simplest example does not work on Windows: int main() { return 0; } This is the output: JITDylib "<main>" (ES: 0x000001b6e4ad3670): Search order: [

Hi, I am developing an application that uses the ORC api to JIT compile C++ code using Clang. So far I have done most of the work on Windows, where it now mostly works as expected. However, when I tried to run my application on Linux I ran into some problems. The problem I ran into is that symbols for jitted inline functions cannot be resolved. Both LLVM and Clang are checked out with latest

Hi Lang, It turns out I also need an ability to tell the object linking layer not to apply any relocations. I need to skip this step below. The only way I can see I can achieve that is by creating my own ObjectLinkingLayer that would duplicate almost all of orc::ObjectLinkingLayer. I’d like to avoid that. An alternative it to pass a flag to orc::ObjectLinkingLayer constructor and

Hi everyone, In llvm 4.0 the MCJIT::getFunctionAddress function return 0 (a null address) when the symbol is not found : *uint64_t MCJIT::getSymbolAddress(const std::string &Name, bool CheckFunctionsOnly) { std::string MangledName; { raw_string_ostream MangledNameStream(MangledName); Mangler::getNameWithPrefix(MangledNameStream, Name, getDataLayout()); } return