[LLVMdev] JIT and libgcc_s.so

[James Molloy]

Hi Eric,

This makes total sense, thanks.

One thing though; it seems a lot of functionality is being foisted onto
the client. This is all well and good, but it seems that clients are
expected to reinvent the wheel quite a bit for no real purpose - an
example is the implementation of getPointerToNamedFunction,
allocate{Code,Data}Section and invalidateInstructionCache in lli.cpp.

Many clients will just want "a standard implementation that works but
can be customised" for many of these functions, and this is currently
not available. So they have to copy-paste code from lli.cpp and keep it
in sync when bugs gets found.

Would it not be nicer to hoist this behaviour that could be customised
but will suit most people's needs (when JITting on host on a unix OS)
into some superclass that could be subclassed in a client?

Cheers,

James

On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 21:16 +0100, Eric Christopher wrote:
> So this is likely just an accident rather than on purpose. There's
> totally room for that to happen, but it'll be the job of the client
> and not MCJIT itself.
> 
> Basically whomever should call dlopen if they want to and it's the
> problem of the client application (which could be lli as the canonical
> mcjit example) to link in the correct bits.
> 
> Make sense? If you can see a use case in particular that would have
> this functionality being linked into mcjit we'd love to hear it, but I
> haven't been able to come up with one.
> 
> -eric
> 
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote:
> > Hi James,
> >
> > In that scenario, it would be the responsibility of the client to implement a memory manager for the MCJIT that knows how to import those symbols from the relevant shared library (or resolve them directly to the statically compiled symbols).
> >
> > -Jim
> >
> > On Oct 1, 2012, at 3:09 AM, James Molloy <James.Molloy at arm.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> There are symbols in libgcc (and compiler-rt) that JIT-compiled modules
> >> may need. These are currently linked correctly because lli and friends
> >> are linked against libgcc_s.so (i.e. shared library version of libgcc,
> >> so dlopen/dlsym works).
> >>
> >> However if a consumer links statically, dlsym won't find all compiler
> >> required functions (only the ones that were required by the JIT-compiler
> >> itself will be linked).
> >>
> >> So the question is, do we want to support users of the MCJIT linking
> >> statically to libgcc/compiler-rt? Or explicitly not handle this
> >> use-case?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>