[LLVMdev] ORC jit example (was: refs to LLVM consultants)

[Liam]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Lang Hames <lha...@gmail.com> wrote:

There are two other Orc-based JITs in tree. One is the MCJIT replacement, which you'll find in lib/ExecutionEngine/Orc/OrcMCJITReplacement.*, and the other is OrcLazyJIT, which you'll find in tools/lli/OrcLazyJIT.*. The former is just emulating MCJIT's behaviour, the latter is doing true lazy compilation of bitcode. Both are hooked up to lli, and be accessed using the -jit-kind option.

Any thoughts of including lli in the nightly snapshot/package builds, for those of us embedding the JIT? The setup for a first build from source looks involved...

[Isaiah Norton]

Any thoughts of including lli in the nightly snapshot/package builds, for those of us embedding the JIT?

+1. I've wanted this (and llc) several times recently for debugging IR issues on Windows.

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
LLV...@cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

[Hans Wennborg]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Isaiah Norton <isaiah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Any thoughts of including lli in the nightly snapshot/package builds, for
>> those of us embedding the JIT?
>
>
> +1. I've wanted this (and llc) several times recently for debugging IR
> issues on Windows.

The Windows snapshots are targeted at users who want to try out an
LLVM toolchain on Windows rather than LLVM developers, so they don't
include all the tools such as opt, llc, lli etc, or libraries.

We experimented with shipping full builds, but they were much bigger.

If you're doing LLVM development on Windows, you'll probably want to
build your own.

[Liam]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Hans Wennborg <ha...@chromium.org> wrote:

The Windows snapshots are targeted at users who want to try out an
LLVM toolchain on Windows rather than LLVM developers, so they don't
include all the tools such as opt, llc, lli etc, or libraries.

We experimented with shipping full builds, but they were much bigger.

Bigger than the 3.6 release builds? Why would nightlies have less functionality than releases? Shouldn't a reduced build for tire kickers be based on a proven release?

I'm simply a client of the new ORC library; I just need binaries.

[Hans Wennborg]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Liam <pub...@networkimprov.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Hans Wennborg <ha...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> The Windows snapshots are targeted at users who want to try out an
>> LLVM toolchain on Windows rather than LLVM developers, so they don't
>> include all the tools such as opt, llc, lli etc, or libraries.
>>
>> We experimented with shipping full builds, but they were much bigger.
>
>
> Bigger than the 3.6 release builds? Why would nightlies have less
> functionality than releases? Shouldn't a reduced build for tire kickers be
> based on a proven release?

The snapshots and the Win release are built the same way. Neither
contain libraries or development tools; they're both suitable for use
as a tool-chain, but not for consuming LLVM as a library.

> I'm simply a client of the new ORC library; I just need binaries.

The LLVM build doesn't have a good shared library story on Windows
yet. See e.g. this thread:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-April/084142.html

[Liam]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Hans Wennborg <ha...@chromium.org> wrote:

The snapshots and the Win release are built the same way. Neither
contain libraries or development tools; they're both suitable for use
as a tool-chain, but not for consuming LLVM as a library.

> I'm simply a client of the new ORC library; I just need binaries.

The LLVM build doesn't have a good shared library story on Windows

A static library (for lib/ExecutionEngine/* in my case) would be preferable to a DLL.

Those are generally useful components and wouldn't add much to the release.