[LLVMdev] Function calls only being JIT'd once by Kaleidoscope with MCJIT?

[Lang Hames]

Hi Dave, Per,

Dave - The issue Eric raised was with chapters 7 and 8. I've fixed that in
235541.

Per - It's not obvious to my why Chapter 4 should need RTTI. What error are
you seeing?

Cheers,
Lang.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:11 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote:
> > No progress since Charlie last looked at it.
>
> Sorry, I meant to refer to the issue Per Mildner mentioned regarding
> the tutorials not building due to RTTI - which I recall discussing
> with you & Eric, but don't know what came of it.
>
> > As Per suggested, it may be
> > worth adding an explicit #error, or at least a comment, noting that the
> > later examples are broken.
> >
> > Going forward, I see three options:
> >
> > (1) Remove the old tutorials entirely, and encourage people to check out
> the
> > MCJIT and Orc versions.
> > (2) Build an Orc-based stack that approximates the behavior of the Old
> JIT
> > (which the old tutorials assume).
> > (3) Rewrite the old tutorial to natively use the new APIs.
> >
> > I much prefer the third option. The first option misses out on a lot of
> > language/API discussion that's contained in the later chapters of the old
> > tutorials. The second option replicates a JIT stack that wouldn't be
> useful
> > for most clients.
> >
> > If we were going to pursue option three, the simple JIT from the
> Orc/initial
> > tutorial seems like a good starting point to re-write the old tutorials.
> > Then we'd have an interesting bifurcation part way through the tutorial
> > series: Go one way and add new language features on top of the simple
> JIT,
> > or go another and add features to the JIT while keeping the language
> steady.
> > Cross-polination of the two branches (new JIT features + new language
> > features) could be handled in future tutorials, or left as an exercise
> for
> > the reader.
> >
> > The tricky part, as usual, is finding the time to do this.
> > Volunteers/patches welcome. :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lang.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:16 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Per Mildner <Per.Mildner at sics.se>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Charlie Turner <charlesturner7c5 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>> > I was planning on committing these changes with the corresponding
> >>> > changes to the Kaleidoscope tutorial walk-through. Might be a bit of
> a
> >>> > surprise to have no explanation of what MCJITHelper and friends is
> >>> > doing.
> >>> >
> >>> > I'll try and make time to prepare some patches along these lines, as
> >>> > well as updating future chapters with the same fix.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks for taking a look :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Any progress on fixing the tutorial?
> >>>
> >>> I am about to dive into LLVM and after some hair-pulling found that the
> >>> Kaleidoscope tutorials (from part 5 onwards), are broken.
> >>>
> >>> Obviously this is not a good first impression.
> >>>
> >>> (even a note in the source code, #error "currently does not work",
> would
> >>> be
> >>> a huge improvement, since it would avoid a lot of wasted time for the
> >>> beginner.)
> >>>
> >>> PS. On OS X 10.8.5, the compile command for part 4 of the tutorial
> needs
> >>> -fno-rtti, presumably because the code now inherits from a LLVM class.
> >>
> >>
> >> Lang - recall what the state is here?
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Per Mildner
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150422/12984159/attachment.html>