llvm dev - May 2021 - Reason to use different address space for statepoints

Hi all,

When we generate an LLVM IR introducing statepoints, do we essentially need
to use a different address space other than the default address space? If
so can you explain the reason for that?

Thank you in advance,
Kavindu

Kavindu Gimhan Zoysa,
BSc(Hons) | ENTC | UoM,
SSE | WSO2

GitHub <https://github.com/KavinduZoysa> LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/kavindu-gimhan-zoysa-85939a122/> Medium
<https://medium.com/@kavindugimhanzoysa>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210507/aa2d3456/attachment.html>

Hi,

I'm not sure that this is a requirement.  The CLR implementation that 
drove a lot of this work wanted to be able to track both native-code 
pointers that were not GC'd and pointers to the GC'd heap and so used AS
1 for GC'd pointers.  If you don't have this distinction then you may be
able to avoid it.  Note that the data layout makes a distinction at the 
address-space level between pointers that can be treated as integers and 
ones that can't.  Pointers to memory with accurate GC shouldn't be 
treated as integers (where they may go out-of-bounds in an intermediate 
state and be lost to the GC).

David

On 07/05/2021 15:28, Kavindu Gimhan Zoysa via llvm-dev
wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> When we generate an LLVM IR introducing statepoints, do we essentially 
> need to use a different address space other than the default address 
> space? If so can you explain the reason for that?
> 
> Thank you in advance,
> Kavindu
> 
> Kavindu Gimhan Zoysa,
> BSc(Hons) | ENTC | UoM,
> SSE | WSO2
> 
> GitHub <https://github.com/KavinduZoysa> LinkedIn 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/kavindu-gimhan-zoysa-85939a122/> Medium 
> <https://medium.com/@kavindugimhanzoysa>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>