Re: Please build the JIT branch

[Max Brister]

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On Jul 16, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Max Brister wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On Jul 12, 2012, at 11:13 PM, Max Brister wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 12, 2012, at 7:52 PM, Ben Abbott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Max Brister wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JIT is still pretty limited, it will not compile loops with any
>>>>>>> function calls, even builtin functions (except for sin, cos, and exp).
>>>>>>> It also only supports linear matrix indexing. For an example of a
>>>>>>> function which can be compiled, see
>>>>>>> http://jit-octave.blogspot.com/2012/06/realistic-test.html.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Max Brister
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Using macports on MacOS 10.7, I did a quick build (without worrying 
>>>>>> about LLVM)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With JIT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     A = gen_test (1000000);
>>>>>>     K = 500;
>>>>>>     Vectorized: 1.274 sec
>>>>>>     Loopy: 4.875 sec
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With 3.7.0+
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     A = gen_test (1000000);
>>>>>>     K = 500;
>>>>>>     Vectorized: 5.944
>>>>>>     Loopy: 16.063
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll try again with LLVM_CONFIG=/opt/local/bin/llvm-config-mp-3.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben
>>>>
>>>> It's odd that there was any change at all between the JIT branch
>>>> (without being able to find llvm) and 3.7.0+. The JIT branch compiled
>>>> without llvm should be mostly the same as 3.7.0+. Almost all of the
>>>> code I have added is inside
>>>> #ifdef LLVM_FOUND
>>>> ....
>>>> #endif // LLVM_FOUND
>>>>
>>>> Maybe this is a fluke?
>>>
>>> I didn't check, but I have an automated backup that may have been running 
>>> with 3.7.0
>>>
>>>>> With LLVM_CONFIG set to the above, I see ...
>>>>>
>>>>> octave(56971,0x7fff70d62960) malloc: *** error for object 0x106a4c620: 
>>>>> pointer being freed was not allocated
>>>>> *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug
>>>>>
>>>>> Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
>>>>> 0x00007fff850fece2 in __pthread_kill ()
>>>>> (gdb) bt
>>>>> #0  0x00007fff850fece2 in __pthread_kill ()
>>>>> #1  0x00007fff856e57d2 in pthread_kill ()
>>>>> #2  0x00007fff856d6a7a in abort ()
>>>>> #3  0x00007fff8573584c in free ()
>>>>> #4  0x00000001069e2685 in std::string::assign ()
>>>>> #5  0x0000000100b4297c in global constructors keyed to a () at 
>>>>> basic_string.h:500
>>>>> #6  0x00007fff5fc0fda6 in 
>>>>> __dyld__ZN16ImageLoaderMachO18doModInitFunctionsERKN11ImageLoader11LinkContextE
>>>>>  ()
>>>>> #7  0x00007fff5fc0faf2 in 
>>>>> __dyld__ZN16ImageLoaderMachO16doInitializationERKN11ImageLoader11LinkContextE
>>>>>  ()
>>>>> #8  0x00007fff5fc0d2e4 in 
>>>>> __dyld__ZN11ImageLoader23recursiveInitializationERKNS_11LinkContextEjRNS_21InitializerTimingListE
>>>>>  ()
>>>>> #9  0x00007fff5fc0d27d in 
>>>>> __dyld__ZN11ImageLoader23recursiveInitializationERKNS_11LinkContextEjRNS_21InitializerTimingListE
>>>>>  ()
>>>>> #10 0x00007fff5fc0e0b7 in 
>>>>> __dyld__ZN11ImageLoader15runInitializersERKNS_11LinkContextERNS_21InitializerTimingListE
>>>>>  ()
>>>>> #11 0x00007fff5fc034dd in __dyld__ZN4dyld24initializeMainExecutableEv ()
>>>>> #12 0x00007fff5fc0760b in 
>>>>> __dyld__ZN4dyld5_mainEPK12macho_headermiPPKcS5_S5_ ()
>>>>> #13 0x00007fff5fc01059 in __dyld__dyld_start ()
>>>>> (gdb)
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben
>>>>
>>>> The stack trace is not very clear, but it looks like something bad is
>>>> happening during static initialization. I should probably get rid of
>>>> these static variables anyways. Can you try the attached patch? If I
>>>> am right it should fix problem.
>>>>
>>>> I might be a bit slow to respond the next few days. I have to prepare
>>>> for and get to OctConf!
>>>>
>>>> Max Brister
>>>> <static_init.patch>
>>>
>>> I don't see any change
>>>
>>> done
>>> octave(88684,0x7fff70d62960) malloc: *** error for object 0x106a4b620: 
>>> pointer being freed was not allocated
>>> *** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug
>>>
>>> Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
>>> 0x00007fff850fece2 in __pthread_kill ()
>>> (gdb) bt
>>> #0  0x00007fff850fece2 in __pthread_kill ()
>>> #1  0x00007fff856e57d2 in pthread_kill ()
>>> #2  0x00007fff856d6a7a in abort ()
>>> #3  0x00007fff8573584c in free ()
>>> #4  0x00000001069e1685 in std::string::assign ()
>>> #5  0x0000000100b4287c in global constructors keyed to a () at 
>>> basic_string.h:500
>>> #6  0x00007fff5fc0fda6 in 
>>> __dyld__ZN16ImageLoaderMachO18doModInitFunctionsERKN11ImageLoader11LinkContextE
>>>  ()
>>> #7  0x00007fff5fc0faf2 in 
>>> __dyld__ZN16ImageLoaderMachO16doInitializationERKN11ImageLoader11LinkContextE
>>>  ()
>>> #8  0x00007fff5fc0d2e4 in 
>>> __dyld__ZN11ImageLoader23recursiveInitializationERKNS_11LinkContextEjRNS_21InitializerTimingListE
>>>  ()
>>> #9  0x00007fff5fc0d27d in 
>>> __dyld__ZN11ImageLoader23recursiveInitializationERKNS_11LinkContextEjRNS_21InitializerTimingListE
>>>  ()
>>> #10 0x00007fff5fc0e0b7 in 
>>> __dyld__ZN11ImageLoader15runInitializersERKNS_11LinkContextERNS_21InitializerTimingListE
>>>  ()
>>> #11 0x00007fff5fc034dd in __dyld__ZN4dyld24initializeMainExecutableEv ()
>>> #12 0x00007fff5fc0760b in 
>>> __dyld__ZN4dyld5_mainEPK12macho_headermiPPKcS5_S5_ ()
>>> #13 0x00007fff5fc01059 in __dyld__dyld_start ()
>>> (gdb)
>>
>> I'm not sure what is happening here. If the statics I'm initializing
>> do not cause any issue and Octave runs by its self, I wonder if this
>> problem is caused by llvm? Does just linking llvm into Octave without
>> using jit at all cause this problem?
>>
>> Max Brister
>
> What is the best way for me to test that? Do I simply add the part below to 
> ./configure when building the developer's sources from Savannah?
>
>         LLVM_CONFIG=/opt/local/bin/llvm-config-mp-3.0
>
> Ben

Sorry for the delay. That approach will not work, as the developers
source from savanah does not search for llvm. I have attached a patch
that changes configure.ac to disable HAVE_LLVM (even when LLVM is
found). Then it call llvm::getGlobalContext () in octave_main. This
should show us if LLVM is an issue, or it is my code.

Max Brister

llvm_check.patch
Description: Binary data