Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "faultmaps".
2016 Jan 21
2
Adding support for self-modifying branches to LLVM?
...e at large scale. I've definitely
seen removing a highly predictable branch (in many, many places, some of
which are hot) to benefit performance in the 5-10% range. For instance,
removing highly predictable branches is the primary motivation of
implicit null checking. (http://llvm.org/docs/FaultMaps.html). Where
exactly the performance improvement comes from is hard to say, but,
empirically, it does matter.
(Caveat to above: I have not run an experiment that actually put in the
same number of bytes in nops. It's possible the entire benefit I
mentioned is code size related, but I dou...
2016 Jan 21
3
Adding support for self-modifying branches to LLVM?
...tely seen removing a highly predictable branch (in many,
> many places, some of which are hot) to benefit performance in the
> 5-10% range. For instance, removing highly predictable branches
> is the primary motivation of implicit null checking.
> (http://llvm.org/docs/FaultMaps.html). Where exactly the
> performance improvement comes from is hard to say, but,
> empirically, it does matter.
>
> (Caveat to above: I have not run an experiment that actually put
> in the same number of bytes in nops. It's possible the entire
> benefit...
2016 Jan 19
4
Adding support for self-modifying branches to LLVM?
Hi,
I’m thinking about using LLVM to implement a limited form of self-modifying
code. Before diving into that, I’d like to get some feedback from you all.
*The goal:* I’d like to add “optional” code to a program that I can enable
at runtime and that has zero (i.e., as close to zero as I can get) overhead
when not enabled.
*Existing solutions:* Currently, I can guard optional code using a
2015 Oct 19
3
Managed Languages BOF @ Dev Meeting
On 18 Oct 2015, at 23:08, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote:
>
> Supporting only basic block level granularity for "try ranges" may not
> be sufficient for Java -- if a basic block has more than one null check
> in it then throwing the NullPtrException for the first null check (if
> it fails) is semantically different from throwing the
2015 Jul 29
1
[LLVMdev] Error when i am using command make -j4 command in cygwin to compile safecode
...p for Release+Asserts build
llvm[2]: Compiling ExpandPostRAPseudos.cpp for Release+Asserts build
llvm[3]: Compiling LoopVectorize.cpp for Release+Asserts build
llvm[3]: Compiling IPO.cpp for Release+Asserts build
llvm[3]: Compiling DependencyAnalysis.cpp for Release+Asserts build
llvm[2]: Compiling FaultMaps.cpp for Release+Asserts build
llvm[3]: Compiling InlineAlways.cpp for Release+Asserts build
llvm[3]: Compiling ObjCARC.cpp for Release+Asserts build
llvm[2]: Compiling GCMetadata.cpp for Release+Asserts build
llvm[3]: Compiling InlineSimple.cpp for Release+Asserts build
llvm[3]: Compiling ObjCARCAP...