search for: gavlin

[+CC llvm-dev this time] Hi, As discussed in the review thread in http://reviews.llvm.org/D16439, the future plan around statepoints, deopt bundles, PlaceSafepoints etc. is to "constant fold" -spp-no-statepoints and -rs4gc-use-deopt-bundles to true. We (Azul) have moved to a representation of safepoint polls, deopt state etc. that enables us to do the above; and at this point I'm

As part of adding `"deopt"` operand bundles, we're aiming to change RewriteStatepointsForGC (called RS4GC henceforth) from rewriting existing `gc.statepoint` calls to transforming normal LLVM calls and invokes into `gc.statepoint` calls and invokes (i.e. to do PlaceSafepoints + RS4GC in one step). This will make `gc.statepoint` an artifact of the gc lowering strategy that only

A high level summary of the proposal as it stands right now (from my perspective), after incorporating Philip's suggestions: 1. Operand bundles are a way to associate a set of SSA values with a call or invoke. 2. Operand bundles are lowered in some arbitrary bundle-tag specific manner. 3. The optimizer can optimize around operand bundles with (roughly) the assumption that

...ruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>; Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com>; Chen Li <meloli87 at gmail.com>; Russell Hadley <rhadley at microsoft.com>; Kevin Modzelewski <kmod at dropbox.com>; Swaroop Sridhar <Swaroop.Sridhar at microsoft.com>; rudi at dropbox.com; Pat Gavlin <pagavlin at microsoft.com>; Joseph Tremoulet <jotrem at microsoft.com>; Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> Subject: Re: RFC: Add "operand bundles" to calls and invokes On 08/19/2015 06:09 PM, Sanjoy Das wrote: > A high level summary of the proposal as it stands rig...

...anl.gov>, "Chen Li" <meloli87 at gmail.com>, "Russell > Hadley" <rhadley at microsoft.com>, "Kevin Modzelewski" > <kmod at dropbox.com>, "Swaroop Sridhar" > <Swaroop.Sridhar at microsoft.com>, rudi at dropbox.com, "Pat Gavlin" > <pagavlin at microsoft.com>, "Joseph Tremoulet" <jotrem at microsoft.com>, > "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com> > Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 11:38:32 PM > Subject: Re: RFC: Add "operand bundles" to calls and invokes > On Su...

We'd like to propose a scheme to attach "operand bundles" to call and invoke instructions. This is based on the offline discussion mentioned in http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-July/088748.html. # Motivation & Definition Our motivation behind this is to track the state required for deoptimization (described briefly later) through the LLVM pipeline as a

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 at 08:19 Stephen Cross <scross at scross.co.uk> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I was wondering if anyone could answer the questions in my first > email. These were: > > * Why does Clang generate 8 byte alignment for 16+ byte arrays on > x86-64, even though the AMD64 ABI seems to require 16 byte alignment? > * Clang has some logic in