On 08.09.25 15:20, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
I tried building against LLVM-21 and noticed that a function for symbol
lookup was renamed (without semantic changes), breaking the LLVM JIT.
The following patch fixes this by adding a version guard. It applies equally to both master and 17.6. Passes the test suite and verified on 17.6 with the
jit example from the documentation.

I can confirm that this change seems correct.  See [0] for reference.

[0]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d3d856ad84698fa4ec66177d00558b2f5b438d3b

As a small style request, I would flip the conditional around so that the new code appears first. I see that we don't do this very consistently in the existing code, but maybe we can start a new trend. ;-)

In my testing with LLVM 21, I'm getting an additional error:

../src/backend/jit/llvm/llvmjit_wrap.cpp:56:18: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'llvm::orc::RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer'
   56 |         return wrap(new llvm::orc::RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer(
      |                         ^
57 | *unwrap(ES), [] { return std::make_unique<llvm::backport::SectionMemoryManager>(nullptr, true); })); | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /opt/homebrew/Cellar/llvm/21.1.0/include/llvm/ExecutionEngine/Orc/RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer.h:58:3: note: candidate constructor not viable: no known conversion from '(lambda at ../src/backend/jit/llvm/llvmjit_wrap.cpp:57:16)' to 'GetMemoryManagerFunction' (aka 'unique_function<std::unique_ptr<RuntimeDyld::MemoryManager> (const MemoryBuffer &)>') for 2nd argument
   58 |   RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer(ExecutionSession &ES,
      |   ^
59 | GetMemoryManagerFunction GetMemoryManager); | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /opt/homebrew/Cellar/llvm/21.1.0/include/llvm/ExecutionEngine/Orc/RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer.h:37:16: note: candidate constructor (the implicit copy constructor) not viable: requires 1 argument, but 2 were provided
   37 | class LLVM_ABI RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer
      |                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I gather you're not seeing that?



Reply via email to