[LLVMdev] Signals: interpreter vs. JIT

[Matt Renzelmann]

Sam, Nick, thank you both for your reply--that was what I thought but wanted
to check.  The JIT compiler for x86 is pretty robust.  Are you aware of any
comprehensive list of the most "significant" functional differences between
the interpreter and the JIT for x86, i.e. a TODO list?  grep -I todo * ?

I've just got a rather large project here (user-mode Linux) which works with
the x86 JIT, but it'd be really great if we could get it working with the
interpreter as well, so I may take you up on your offer--it's TBD at this
point though.

Thanks and regards,
Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On
Behalf Of Samuel Crow
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 12:05 PM
To: LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Signals: interpreter vs. JIT

Hello Matt,

The interpreter doesn't support external functions at all.  This includes
the printf function from the glibc library.  That's why the signal causes a
segfault.

If you're interested in bringing the interpreter up-to-date with the JIT
compiler, I would welcome it since JIT compilation isn't supported on all
platforms.

--Sam



----- Original Message ----
> From: Matt Renzelmann <mjr at cs.wisc.edu>
> To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2009 11:23:27 AM
> Subject: [LLVMdev] Signals: interpreter vs. JIT
> 
> Just a quick question on LLVM, signals, and the lli interpreter.  A sample
> program is included at the end.  Platform is x86, Linux, 32-bit, GCC
4.2.4.
> 
> Does lli -force-interpreter support signals, or is it only the JIT that
> does?  The following sample program crashes with lli 2.5 and lli
> top-of-tree.
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> Matt
> 
-snip-



      
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev