<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hi Stefan,<div><br></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Thanks for the update! Is there a conceptual difference between the old:<br>DynamicLibrarySearchGenerator::GetForCurrentProcess(<SystemManglingPrefix>)<br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">and the newly added TCP-based one (when applied to the own process):<br>TPCDynamicLibrarySearchGenerator::GetForTargetProcess(SelfTargetProcessControl::Create())</blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>There is no conceptual difference. The TargetProcessControl method needs some road-testing, but should eventually be the preferred method.</div><div><br></div><div>DynamicLibrarySearchGenerator will remain available for quite a while for the sake of clients who can't use TargetProcessControl, e.g. people using RuntimeDyld with a custom memory manager.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Lang.</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 2:50 AM Stefan Gränitz <<a href="mailto:stefan.graenitz@gmail.com">stefan.graenitz@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Lang<br>
<br>
Thanks for the update! Is there a conceptual difference between the old:<br>
DynamicLibrarySearchGenerator::GetForCurrentProcess(<SystemManglingPrefix>)<br>
<br>
and the newly added TCP-based one (when applied to the own process):<br>
TPCDynamicLibrarySearchGenerator::GetForTargetProcess(SelfTargetProcessControl::Create())<br>
<br>
Or can we just assume it the preferred, more generalized approach for<br>
constructing definition generators from now on?<br>
<br>
> Near term ORC work will focus on expanding TargetProcessControl, improving<br>
> JITLink's ELF support, ...<br>
<br>
Sounds great!<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Stefan<br>
<br>
On 28/07/2020 06:01, Lang Hames wrote:<br>
> Hi All,<br>
><br>
> This was a quiet week -- the only significant ORC change was to the<br>
> new TargetProcessControl API [1], which acquired the ability to load<br>
> libraries and search for symbols in the target process in [2]. A new<br>
> TargetProcessControl based definition generator is included to take<br>
> advantage of this, and the LLJITWithTargetProcessControl example has<br>
> been updated to include it.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Lang.<br>
><br>
> [1] <a href="http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-July/143532.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-July/143532.html</a><br>
> [2]<br>
> <a href="https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/13ad00be98e10bb08aeb6eacf8f3aebff653578c" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/13ad00be98e10bb08aeb6eacf8f3aebff653578c</a><br>
><br>
-- <br>
<a href="https://flowcrypt.com/pub/stefan.graenitz@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://flowcrypt.com/pub/stefan.graenitz@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>