search for: gc_safeti

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 Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:48 PM Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > It looks like the key controversial point is the bit about the extra > control dependence on loads and stores[0]. Generally the consensus is > that (please chime if you think otherwise) it is not reasonable to > make the safety (or semantics) of a load instruction

> 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

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > It looks like the key controversial point is the bit about the extra > control dependence on loads and stores[0]. Generally the consensus is > that (please chime if you think otherwise) it is not reasonable to > make the safety (or semantics) of a load instruction depend