[llvm-dev] LLVM on bare-metal

[Brian Clarkson via llvm-dev]

Hi Tim.

Thank you for taking to time to comment on the background!

I will definitely study lldb and remote JIT for ideas.  I worry that I 
will not be able to pre-link on the host side because the host cannot(?) 
know the final memory layout of code on the client side, especially when 
there are multiple plugins being loaded in different combinations on the 
host and client.  Is that an unfounded worry?

I suppose it is also possible to share re-locatable machine code (ELF?) 
and only use client-side embedded LLVM for linking duties? Does that 
simplify things appreciably?  I was under the impression that if I can 
compile and embed the LLVM linker then embedding LLVM's codegen 
libraries would not be much extra work.  Then I can allow users to use 
Faust (or any other frontend) to generate bytecode in addition to my 
"live coding" desktop application.  So many variables to consider... :-)


Kind regards
Brian Clarkson


Orthogonal Devices
Tokyo, Japan
www.orthogonaldevices.com

On 27/06/2019 18:17, Tim Northover wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> I'm afraid I can't answer your actual questions, but do have a couple
> of comments on the background...
>
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 09:50, Brian Clarkson via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> LLVM would be responsible for generating
>> (optimized, and especially vectorized for NEON) machine code directly on
>> the embedded device and it would take care of the relocation and
>> run-time linking duties.
> That's a much smaller task than what you'd get from embedding all of
> LLVM. lldb is probably an example of a program with a similar problem
> to you, and it gets by with just a pretty small stub of a
> "debugserver" on a device. It does all CodeGen and even prelinking on
> the host side, and then transfers binary data across.
>
> The concept is called "remote JIT" in the LLVM codebase if you want to
> research it more.
>
> I think the main advantage you'd get from embedding LLVM itself over a
> scheme like that would be a certain resilience to updating the RTOS on
> the device (it would cope with a function sliding around in memory
> even if the host is no longer available to recompile), but I bet there
> are simpler ways to do that. The API surface you need to control is
> probably pretty small.
>
>> Sharing code in the form of LLVM bytecode
>> also seems to sidestep the complex task of setting up a cross-compiling
>> toolchain which is something that I would prefer not to have to force my
>> users to do.
> If you can produce bitcode on the host, you can produce an ARM binary
> without forcing the users to install extra stuff. The work involved
> would be pretty comparable to what you'd have to do on the RTOS side
> anyway (you're unlikely to be running GNU ld against system libraries
> on the RTOS), and made slightly easier by the host being more of a
> "normal" LLVM environment.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Tim.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus