[llvm-dev] MCJit and remove module memory leak?

[koffie drinker via llvm-dev]

There's a orc mcjit drop in replacement in the source tree.
Am I correct to assume that Orc is used (and emulating mcjit behaviour)
when replacing
LLVMLinkInOrcMCJITReplacement();
//LLVMLinkInMCJIT();
and linking with libOrcJit ?
Does this replacement handle memory better than original mcjit ?


On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Kevin P. Neal via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 04:20:32PM -0700, Lang Hames via llvm-dev wrote:
> >    Hi Koffie,
> >    Kaleidoscope is no longer using MCJIT - it has been moved over to the
> >    ORC-based KaleidoscopeJIT class (see
> >    llvm/examples/Kaleidoscope/include/KaleidoscopeJIT.h). The
> removeModule
> >    method there does not leak memory.
> >    I've added documentation in r286026 to describe MCJIT removeModule's
> >    crazy ownership contract.
> >    This will be fixed properly when we kill off ExecutionEngine. :)
>
> Does this mean MCJIT is dead/deprecated and projects using it should start
> migrating away now? If so, what's the time frame?
>
> --
> Kevin P. Neal                                http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/
>
> "It sounded pretty good, but it's hard to tell how it will work out
> in practice." -- Dennis Ritchie, ~1977, "Summary of a DEC 32-bit machine"
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161111/888740e4/attachment.html>