[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Orc Windows C++

Tue Oct 13 22:48:38 PDT 2015

Hi Joshua, Andy,

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with COFF. Andy - is IMAGE_REL_AMD64_REL32
unexpected if you're compiling for 64-bit mode? It sounds like it from your
description above.

I'll look in to the "BSS sections don't have contents" error tomorrow: It
looks like it's happening in platform-agnostic RuntimeDyld code, so
hopefully I can reproduce this on Darwin.

Cheers,
Lang.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Joshua Gerrard via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Oops, sorry for the spam.
>
> That last comment was incorrect. It’s IMAGE_REL_AMD64_REL32 not _5
>
> > On 5 Oct 2015, at 17:26, Joshua Gerrard <joshua.gerrard at roli.com> wrote:
> >
> > Additional info: when the relocation issue does occur the relocation
> type is IMAGE_REL_AMD64_REL32_5
> >
> >> On 5 Oct 2015, at 17:16, Joshua Gerrard <joshua.gerrard at roli.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> It’s pretty intermittent at the moment…sometimes I get the relocation
> overflow issue, sometimes I get another issue about BSS sections having no
> contents.
> >>
> >> The source code to reproduce either is simple:
> >>
> >> #include <iostream>
> >>
> >> int main (int argc, char* argv[])
> >> {
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> I’ve managed to reproduce the BSS section issue in clang consistently,
> and since that comes before terms of where it happens in the compilation /
> JIT’ing process, I can’t get to the part where I see the relocation issue
> in clang.exe rather than my own program.
> >>
> >> clang.exe -c "Y:\Documents\Visual Studio
> 2013\Projects\NewProject\Source\main.cpp"
> >> llvm-rtdyld.exe" -execute main.o
> -dylib=C:\Windows\System32\msvcr120d.dll
> >>
> >> It also occurs with -mcmodel=large specified.
> >>
> >> The exact output of the second command, llvm-rtdyld, is as follows...
> >>
> >> Assertion failed: (Sec->Characteristics &
> COFF::IMAGE_SCN_CNT_UNINITIALIZED_DATA) == 0 && "BSS sections don't have
> contents!", file C:\llvm\llvm\lib\Object\COFFObjectFile.cpp, line 951
> >> 0x00007FF65EAA574C (0x0000000000000016 0x00007FFC73140648
> 0x0000007900000008 0x00000079E68EDC40), HandleAbort() + 0xC bytes(s),
> c:\llvm\llvm\lib\support\windows\signals.inc, line 296
> >> 0x00007FFC807B396F (0x00007FF600000016 0x0000000000000000
> 0x0000007900000004 0x0000000000000101), raise() + 0x35F bytes(s)
> >> 0x00007FFC807C2060 (0x00000079E68EE3F0 0x0000000000000240
> 0x00007FFC80888430 0x00007FF65F7BFF80), abort() + 0x40 bytes(s)
> >> 0x00007FFC807ABF78 (0x00007FF65F7BFF80 0x00007FF65F7BFEF0
> 0xCCCCCCCC000003B7 0xCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC), _wassert() + 0x108 bytes(s)
> >> 0x00007FF65E9E7F57 (0x00000079E6A4AC40 0x00000079E68EE998
> 0x00000079E6A317FC 0x00000079E68EE968),
> llvm::object::COFFObjectFile::getSectionContents() + 0x77 bytes(s),
> c:\llvm\llvm\lib\object\coffobject
> >> file.cpp, line 951 + 0x43 byte(s)
> >> 0x00007FF65E9E46E4 (0x00000079E6A4AC40 0x00000079E68EEE88
> 0x00000079E6A317FC 0x00000079E68EEC98),
> llvm::object::COFFObjectFile::getSectionContents() + 0x74 bytes(s),
> c:\llvm\llvm\lib\object\coffobject
> >> file.cpp, line 293
> >> 0x00007FF65E8B2BC5 (0x00000079E68EEC48 0x00000079E68EEE88
> 0x00000079E68EEC98 0x00000079E68EEC78),
> llvm::object::SectionRef::getContents() + 0x55 bytes(s),
> c:\llvm\llvm\include\llvm\object\objectfile.h
> >> , line 375 + 0x2D byte(s)
> >> 0x00007FF65EA1E516 (0x00000079E6A5DEA0 0x00000079E68EEFF0
> 0x00000079E6A4AC40 0xCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC),
> llvm::RuntimeDyldImpl::loadObjectImpl() + 0x4D6 bytes(s),
> c:\llvm\llvm\lib\executionengine\runtimedyld
> >> \runtimedyld.cpp, line 186 + 0x25 byte(s)
> >> 0x00007FF65EA431AC (0x00000079E6A5DEA0 0x00000079E68EF708
> 0x00000079E6A4AC40 0x00000079E68EF0C8), llvm::RuntimeDyldCOFF::loadObject()
> + 0x3C bytes(s), c:\llvm\llvm\lib\executionengine\runtimedyld\runt
> >> imedyldcoff.cpp, line 57 + 0x14 byte(s)
> >> 0x00007FF65EA1B411 (0x00000079E68EF338 0x00000079E68EF708
> 0x00000079E6A4AC40 0xCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC), llvm::RuntimeDyld::loadObject() +
> 0x221 bytes(s), c:\llvm\llvm\lib\executionengine\runtimedyld\runtime
> >> dyld.cpp, line 928 + 0x2F byte(s)
> >> 0x00007FF65E6781A9 (0x00007FF65FB9AB70 0x00000079E6A45150
> 0x00007FF65F177408 0xCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC), executeInput() + 0x419 bytes(s),
> c:\llvm\llvm\tools\llvm-rtdyld\llvm-rtdyld.cpp, line 365 + 0x1D byte(
> >> s)
> >> 0x00007FF65E67A885 (0x00007FF600000004 0x00000079E6A45150
> 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000), main() + 0xF5 bytes(s),
> c:\llvm\llvm\tools\llvm-rtdyld\llvm-rtdyld.cpp, line 687 + 0x5 byte(s)
> >> 0x00007FF65EE518CD (0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000
> 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000), __tmainCRTStartup() + 0x19D
> bytes(s), f:\dd\vctools\crt\crtw32\dllstuff\crtexe.c, line 626 + 0x19 byte
> >> (s)
> >> 0x00007FF65EE519FE (0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000
> 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000), mainCRTStartup() + 0xE bytes(s),
> f:\dd\vctools\crt\crtw32\dllstuff\crtexe.c, line 466
> >> 0x00007FFC9C4F2D92 (0x00007FFC9C4F2D70 0x0000000000000000
> 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000), BaseThreadInitThunk() + 0x22
> bytes(s)
> >> 0x00007FFC9EE19F64 (0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000
> 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000), RtlUserThreadStart() + 0x34 bytes(s)
> >>
> >> …the stack trace of which looks semantically the same as when I have
> that assertion triggered in my own program.
> >>
> >> Relevant information:
> >> - llvm, clang and compiler-rt revision 249038 from trunk
> >> - built with the command (where ../llvm is the llvm source root) cmake
> -G "Visual Studio 12 2013 Win64" -DLLVM_INCLUDE_EXAMPLES=OFF
> -DLLVM_INCLUDE_TESTS=OFF -DLLVM_INCLUDE_DOCS=OFF -DLLVM_USE_CRT_DEBUG=MDd
> -DLLVM_USE_CRT_RELEASE=MD ../llvm
> >> - VS2013 version 12.0.40629.00 Update 5
> >>
> >> Running the same code without llvm-rtdyld.exe (i.e. non-JIT) does so
> without error.
> >>
> >> Thanks very much for any response!
> >>
> >> (Sorry for the slow reply, was trying to get something as minimal as
> possible for you to look at)
> >>
> >>> On 2 Oct 2015, at 19:45, Andy Ayers <andya at microsoft.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If LLVM is generating the x64 code and you have specified a large code
> model, you should not see any 32 bit relocations.
> >>>
> >>> So it would be interesting to determine what kind of relocation you
> are seeing and where it came from.
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
> Joshua Gerrard via llvm-dev
> >>> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 1:18 AM
> >>> To: Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Orc Windows C++
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the link!
> >>> There’s some code there that looks extremely relevant to say the least.
> >>>
> >>>> On 1 Oct 2015, at 19:00, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe looking at their code might help:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fgithu
> >>>> b.com
> %2fdotnet%2fllilc%2fblob%2fdd12743f9cdb5418f1c39b2cd756da1e8396a9
> >>>> 22%2flib%2fJit%2fLLILCJit.cpp%23L299&data=01%7c01%7candya%40microsoft.
> >>>> com%7ce71168aad7ca4c98ee1f08d2cb024bf8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011d
> >>>> b47%7c1&sdata=4LCM5dPAFSQZYdEV2jNoXbtIg79%2foS5%2bB8O2Nl3ZqT4%3d
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:45 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev
> >>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>>>> Moving to the LLVM Dev list & cc'ing Lang.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Joshua Gerrard via cfe-dev
> >>>>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello folks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I’m developing an application that uses Orc JIT for C++, which works
> >>>>>> swimmingly on Mac OS X. However, the Windows version has been a
> >>>>>> battle and a half, and it’s now at the point where I need some
> assistance to progress.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The problem I’m having is “Relocation overflow” (related:
> >>>>>>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fllv
> >>>>>> m.org
> %2fbugs%2fshow_bug.cgi%3fid%3d23228%23c8%2c&data=01%7c01%7candy
> >>>>>> a%40microsoft.com%7ce71168aad7ca4c98ee1f08d2cb024bf8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=SnxHR5RzKhzNYFDeryATV0MSpqTcjZauHtTG2GTEazA%3d
> see #8) … so I spoke to some clang developers who focussed on Windows at
> CppCon last week, and they gave me the following advice:
> >>>>>> - Use ELF
> >>>>>> - Using this results in another issue about comdat sections, see
> here:
> >>>>>>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2froo
> >>>>>> t.cern.ch
> %2fphpBB3%2fviewtopic.php%3ft%3d19808&data=01%7c01%7candya%
> >>>>>> 40microsoft.com
> %7ce71168aad7ca4c98ee1f08d2cb024bf8%7c72f988bf86f141a
> >>>>>> f91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=DxCUHFZFW7SxfN6pHlHDfT3yY4DrE5DZTyLCVDWv
> >>>>>> 3Yw%3d
> >>>>>> - Stick with COFF, but use the large code model
> >>>>>> - No observed difference, seems to be the case because JITDefault
> >>>>>> is being used in the same way as Large, which would make sense
> >>>>>> - According to the clang developers I spoke to, Lang and Andy
> >>>>>> might have an interest in fixing this (would seem likely, as they’re
> >>>>>> the two commenters on the first issue I linked), since it’s better
> >>>>>> to use COFF on Windows than keep trying to work around it
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any ideas?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks in advance!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
> >>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >>>>>>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2flist
> >>>>>> s.llvm.org
> %2fcgi-bin%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fcfe-dev&data=01%7c01%7ca
> >>>>>> ndya%40microsoft.com
> %7ce71168aad7ca4c98ee1f08d2cb024bf8%7c72f988bf86
> >>>>>> f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=9uOfIMd1%2b2DesS3Bne%2f2jkbDpV5REzk
> >>>>>> VYj33rujvMGY%3d
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >>>>>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2flists
> >>>>> .llvm.org
> %2fcgi-bin%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fllvm-dev&data=01%7c01%7can
> >>>>> dya%40microsoft.com
> %7ce71168aad7ca4c98ee1f08d2cb024bf8%7c72f988bf86f1
> >>>>> 41af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=FZAxWxfyZeisom9maEJGCLgK2aboy%2bnneyka
> >>>>> 4FPlh%2bE%3d
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >>>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2flists.llvm.org%2fcgi-bin%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fllvm-dev%0a&data=01%7c01%7candya%40microsoft.com%7ce71168aad7ca4c98ee1f08d2cb024bf8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=y93xNmwi0v4F3tMocQyu1rGo7zCnU5y3T2FLxSdSWo0%3d
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151013/a7239b6e/attachment.html>