llvm dev - Dec 2015 - Status of "llvm.pcmarker" intrinsic?

Hi all,

I've seen previous messages about "llvm.pcmarker" not being
supported on
x86 (e.g. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2010-February/029239.html
and http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2012-June/051104.html).
However, these messages are several years old -- is the intrinsic still not
implemented?

-- 
Rob Lyerly
Graduate Research Assistant, Systems Software Research Group
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151216/bfd961ec/attachment.html>

Rob Lyerly via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
writes:
> I've seen previous messages about "llvm.pcmarker" not being
supported on
> x86 (e.g.
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2010-February/029239.html
> and http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2012-June/051104.html).
> However, these messages are several years old -- is the intrinsic still not
> implemented?
As far as I can tell llvm.pcmarker was only ever implemented for Alpha,
and that backend was removed in 2011. All of the code and documentation
relating to pcmarker has been dead for years, and should probably just
be removed.

There seems to be semantic overlap with stackmap, patchpoint, and 
statepoint as well.

I suspect we should remove pcmarker and forward serialize it in bitcode 
as a nop.

Philip

On 12/16/2015 02:14 PM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev
wrote:
> Rob Lyerly via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
>> I've seen previous messages about "llvm.pcmarker" not
being supported on
>> x86 (e.g.
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2010-February/029239.html
>> and http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2012-June/051104.html).
>> However, these messages are several years old -- is the intrinsic still
not
>> implemented?
> As far as I can tell llvm.pcmarker was only ever implemented for Alpha,
> and that backend was removed in 2011. All of the code and documentation
> relating to pcmarker has been dead for years, and should probably just
> be removed.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev