[llvm-commits] [PATCH] Generate info about the JIT process

[Evan Phoenix]

On May 18, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Argiris Kirtzidis wrote:

> Hi Evan,
>
> I commited the patch, thanks!

Wonderful! Thanks so much!

  - Evan

>
>
> -Argiris
>
>
> Evan Phoenix wrote:
>> I haven't heard anything from Argiris, or any other thoughts on  
>> what the JITListener would look like. I hesitate to write such a  
>> thing without an idea of what people want, so I'm hoping we can  
>> commit my patch as is.
>>
>> When there is more discussion about the JITListener, it will be  
>> easy to make MachineCodeInfo sit on top of it without any external  
>> API changes.
>>
>> I've attached an updated version of the patch against SVN HEAD.
>>
>> - Evan
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 13, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>
>>> On May 13, 2009, at 2:20 AM, Argiris Kirtzidis wrote:
>>>>> Thats basically what MachineCodeInfo enables. ATM, there are  
>>>>> only 2
>>>>> things it publishes directly to the MCI, but future APIs can  
>>>>> easily be
>>>>> added using virtual methods to allow for subclasses of  
>>>>> MachineCodeInfo
>>>>> to do new things.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is far from a final set of things MCI will do, it's  
>>>>> primarily a
>>>>> way of introduce an API that we can add future things to.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, that sounds great. It's just that MachineCodeInfo is  
>>>> restricted to
>>>> the "function level", how about "module level" info, specifically
>>>> getting notifications during code execution like:
>>>> -"I lazy JITed this function"
>>>> -"I allocated this memory chunk for this global variable"
>>>>
>>>> Of course, MachineCodeInfo could be the one for the "function  
>>>> level" and
>>>> something like "JITListener" at the module level. The JITListener  
>>>> could
>>>> have a method that passes a MachineCodeInfo before function  
>>>> JITing. IMO
>>>> this is flexible and clean.
>>>
>>> I agree with Argiris: there should be a simple abstract interface  
>>> with methods like the above.  The JIT should have an optional  
>>> pointer to it.  If non-null, it would invoke the methods on the  
>>> JITListener.  This would allow lots of detailed instrumentation,  
>>> but would introduce no overhead if it's not being used.
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>