On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 00:25 -0800, Evan Cheng wrote: > Ok. I see PPC does exactly the same thing. But this seems like a > temporary solution. Could we add some kind of JIT relocation model > which are target specific? Or any method that would allow llc to > codegen (by specifying some command line option?) in the exact same > way as the JIT would?
Having debugged a number of JIT failures now, I'll throw in my $0.02 worth that we *must* retain this functionality. Sometimes the only/best/easiest way to find a JIT bug is by generating code with llc and looking at it. There needs to be a way to ensure/force JIT and LLC to produce identical code (as far as possible). Reid. > > Evan > On Dec 19, 2006, at 9:59 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > On Dec 19, 2006, at 9:46 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: > >> Let me clarify. It's important for llc and lli to behave exactly the > >> same up to the final code emission pass. With your patch, the two > >> would behave differently and that means we can no longer use llc to > >> reproduce jit codegen bug. > > > > PPC64 has a similar problem. It wants to do codegen in PIC mode, > > but it doesn't want the JIT to make dyld stubs. As such, it does > > 'JIT PIC' mode, which is like PIC but doesn't do the extra load to > > go through dyld stubs. > > > > An alternative approach would be to have the JIT synthesize dyld > > stubs, but that takes work to implement and yields slower programs. > > > > -Chris > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > llvm-commits mailing list > llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
