[LLVMdev] MCJIT and Lazy Compilation

[Andrew Sorensen]

Thanks for the update Andy.

I'm very happy to be involved in anyway that is helpful.  If you would like
me to test ideas, or contribute to further discussions, then please let me
know.

I currently have extempore running nicely with MCJIT for the "monolithic"
case and am working on various LLVM hacks to better understand the issues
involved with non-monolithic approaches - in particular I'm starting with
your multi-module approach.  I will report back when (and if) I have
something useful to contribute.

Cheers,
Andrew.


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>wrote:

>  Hi Andrew,****
>
> ** **
>
> I was about to write a belated reply to this message (sorry for the
> delay), but then I realized that pretty much everything useful that I have
> to say on the subject is contained in this message (which is in a thread
> Albert Graef already linked to):****
>
> ** **
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/llvm-dev/Rk9cWdRX0Wg/Fa1Mn6cyS9UJ****
>
> ** **
>
> Generally, I do hope that MCJIT will be capable of replacing the old JIT
> someday soon, though obviously it cannot do so until it provides equivalent
> functionality.  I doubt it will ever be a “drop-in” replacement, but I hope
> that minimal rework will be needed.  Most significantly, as can be seen in
> earlier discussions, things will need to be made Module-centric rather than
> Function-centric.  It ought to be possible to write a utility class that
> takes a monolithic Module and breaks it up into sub-Modules for individual
> functions, but I think that would need to happen outside of the MCJIT
> engine because not all clients would want that kind of granularity.****
>
> ** **
>
> There’s definitely a lot of work to be done here to get this right, and
> hopefully we’ll get active participation in any design discussions to make
> sure the solution meets everyone’s needs.  I don’t have a time table for
> this right now.  I will file a Bugzilla report as soon as the LLVM server
> is ready.****
>
> ** **
>
> -Andy****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Andrew Sorensen
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:56 PM
> *To:* llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> *Subject:* [LLVMdev] MCJIT and Lazy Compilation****
>
> ** **
>
> Does anyone have a roadmap for MCJIT with what I think people are ****
>
> calling lazy compilation.****
>
> ** **
>
> Is this even on the cards?****
>
> ** **
>
> I spent the last few hours moving my project (extempore.moso.com.au) ****
>
> over to MCJIT (particularly for ARM), and am a little horrified to
> discover ****
>
> no ability to compile, and just as importantly to recompile, at a function
> level.  ****
>
> This is absolutely mandatory for my project.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> I have been looking enviously at MCJIT's ARM+DWARF support for a ****
>
> couple of years and was under the misapprehension that MCJIT was ****
>
> attempting to be a *drop-in* replacement for JIT.  So I wasn't overly****
>
> concerned about the primary JIT being largely neglected. This is obviously
> ****
>
> my fault, I wasn't paying close enough attention.****
>
> ** **
>
> I am now wondering what the LLVM project, in the large, plans regarding **
> **
>
> just-in-time compilation moving forward.  Is MCJIT the future, and****
>
> if so what kind of roadmap is there to replicate current JIT
> functionality. ****
>
> In my case in relation to function level (re)compilation.****
>
> ** **
>
> I appreciate everyones efforts, and that we all have our own agendas.****
>
> I'm just trying to put my own roadmap in place.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> Andrew.****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130207/d0451fb8/attachment.html>