[LLVMdev] Is ExecutionEngine always meant to be a singleton?

[Jeffrey Yasskin]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 8, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
>
>> Right now, on X86, creating multiple ExecutionEngines in the same
>> process causes an assertion.
>>
>
> Yes. This is by design.

Why? By default, I'd rather get rid of singleton requirements than
expose them to users.

>> If it's supposed to always be a singleton, should there be a way to
>> get the process's ExecutionEngine instance?
>>
>
> I can't see why. You could make a server to process llvm code.
>
>> This would, among other things, allow "lli" to execute bitcode that
>> itself uses the ExecutionEngine.
>
> I think you're doing something a bit fishy here. I'm not sure how
> you're generating code, but you may want to look at Unladen Swallow or
> Rubinius or the Kaleidoscope tutorial for how ExecutionEngine is
> generally used for jitting, and jitting in general.
>
> -eric
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>