search for: enregist

...of the funclet can be allocated in registers. I don't think this is quite true. though it might be a useful simplification. Obviously it is true for volatile registers, but I believe the funclet receives a CONTEXT with the nonvolatiles restored. Obviously cumbersome to access, but it lets you enregister them across calls like normal in the "original" function. I haven't seen Visual C++ to such enregistration (nonvolatiles across calls in functions with EH), but you can do it in assembly. nvlocala.asm here http://jaykrell2.blogspot.com/2017/10/windows-amd64-abi-nuances-part-...

...registers. > > I don't think this is quite true. though it might be a useful > simplification. > Obviously it is true for volatile registers, but I believe the funclet > receives a CONTEXT > with the nonvolatiles restored. Obviously cumbersome to access, but it > lets you enregister them across calls like normal in the "original" > function. > > I haven't seen Visual C++ to such enregistration (nonvolatiles across > calls in functions with EH), but you can do it in assembly. > > nvlocala.asm here > http://jaykrell2.blogspot.com/2017/10...

...pointer in the struct as a > generalized ref having a user-defined type and extraneous data. That > user-defined generalized ref type for you would indicate a disjoint union > and the extraneous data could indicate the address of the discriminator in > the union. Whether the data was enregistered or wouldn’t matter in that > case. The GC root callback is passed the user-defined type and extraneous > data you declare the field with.* > > ** > Interesting. Let me think about that. It would indeed be nice if that worked. How would you handle a case where the union member w...

...define the possible pointer in the struct as a generalized ref having a user-defined type and extraneous data. That user-defined generalized ref type for you would indicate a disjoint union and the extraneous data could indicate the address of the discriminator in the union. Whether the data was enregistered or wouldn't matter in that case. The GC root callback is passed the user-defined type and extraneous data you declare the field with. I agree that much of this is at a higher level that LLVM should not have to worry about but having such a generalized ref type in the core seems important...

My thoughts are many, and inline below: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Anderson, Todd A <todd.a.anderson at intel.com > wrote: > For the past few years, my group in Intel Labs has been working on a > project similar to LLVM and C--, and perhaps our experience in handling > roots and stack walking could be useful in deciding how LLVM should evolve > in the GC area. Our

...hat, like the type records, each begin with a 16-bit size and a 16-bit tag. Common symbol record kinds include: - Global Data - Function - Block Scope - Stack Frame - Frame Pointer-Relative Variable - Register-Relative Variable - Enregistered Variable Unlike type records, some symbol records can be nested. For example, Function records usually contain a Stack Frame record, local variable records, and Block Scope records. Block Scope records can in turn contain more local variable and Block Scope records. When a symbol record needs...

For anyone following along on ToT using the gc.statepoint mechanism, you should know that ToT is currently not able to express arbitrary exceptional control flow and relocations along exceptional edges. This is a direct result of moving the gc.statepoint representation to using a token type landingpad. Essentially, we have a design inconsistency where we expect to be able to