search for: blackbox_safety

Hi Andy, Andrew Trick wrote: >> But for the purposes of this discussion, only the legality (or lack >> thereof) of the above transform matters, not whether it is profitable >> or not. > > Given that you will need to disable the transform for GCRefs, it’s interesting that if it’s only something that needs to run before ISEL then you’re not actually losing any

...on IRC (thanks Chandler, Andy, Eli!): > Thanks for writing up the summary, sorry I didn't summarize #2 for you as I had promised. ;] > 2. Introduce a flag on load and stores that either > a. Denotes a "gc_safety" control dependence. > b. Denotes a "blackbox_safety" control dependence. In this case > we will probably have some optional metadata on loads and > stores to indicate that the control dependence is actually on > GC safety. > Suggested name for 2b: "unsafe" or "predicated". Essentia...

> Hi all, > > > 2. Introduce a flag on load and stores that either > a. Denotes a "gc_safety" control dependence. > b. Denotes a "blackbox_safety" control dependence. In this case > we will probably have some optional metadata on loads and > stores to indicate that the control dependence is actually on > GC safety. > > > Suggested name for 2b: "unsafe" or &q...

...ic calls: add > llvm.gc_load, llvm.gc_store intrinsics, and optimize them as loads > and stores whenever appropriate and legal. > > 2. Introduce a flag on load and stores that either > a. Denotes a "gc_safety" control dependence. > b. Denotes a "blackbox_safety" control dependence. In this case > we will probably have some optional metadata on loads and > stores to indicate that the control dependence is actually on > GC safety. > > As a starting point, LLVM will conservatively not speculate such >...