aokblast wrote: > Ahh -- I should have guessed that this would be non-PIC. :) > > If the memory manager can guarantee that code is allocated in the low 4Gb > this should be ok, but in general we can't guarantee that, and clang-repl > probably shouldn't try to support it. > > I think it's reasonable to require PIC for JIT'd code under clang-repl (and > for that to be the default in ORC). Clang should be able to detect when a PCH > assumes an incompatible relocation model and reject the PCH.
Thanks for your reply! I think it is ok to enforce PIC by default in clang-repl. However, I need some time to figure out where I can report the error. Currently, it causes an assertion failure in Clang Sema. Here is a version that enables PIC by default. Let's see if the CI passes first. > > @vgvassilev -- Does clang-repl ever consume PCHs in a context where it > couldn't just regenerate them from source with the correct code & relocation > model? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/201286 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
