search for: gornishanov

...t;> coro.suspend is three-way as opposed to two-way. coro.elide and >> coro.delete >> renamed coro.alloc and coro.free. >> >> All the changes implemented and tested. Full document, (nicely formatted >> by >> github is at: >> >> https://github.com/GorNishanov/llvm/blob/coro-rfc/docs/Coroutines.rst >> >> Below is a summary of a proposal to add coroutine support to LLVM. >> The proposal is motivated primarily by the desire to support C++ >> Coroutines [1], >> however the llvm representation is language neutral and can be used...

...end with 'br %suspend' coro.end expands as before: in f => no-op in f.resume/f.destroy => ret void (+ fancy things in landing pads) Gor On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Gor Nishanov <gornishanov at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Lowering of coro.suspend number X: >> >> 1) split block at coro.suspend, new block becomes jump point for >> resumption X >> 2) RAUW coro.suspend with i1 true in resume clone i1 false in destroy >> clone >> 3) replace cor...

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> Right... but that doesn't mean the call to the suspend intrinsic has to be >> the last non-terminator instruction in the basic block before you run >> CoroSplit. You can split the basic block in CoroSplit so any instructions >> after the suspend call are part of a different basic

...f they weren't there, but, if frontend put them there, LLVM should not replace them with `@llvm.traps` and `undef`s either. Gor On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Hi Gor, > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Gor Nishanov <gornishanov at gmail.com> wrote: >> Quick answer: folding %val to 10 is OK, but, I would prefer it to be 'undef' >> or even catch it in the verifier as it is a programmer/frontend error. > > Ok. > >>>> The thought experiment relevant here is that **could** you implem...

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Gor Nishanov <gornishanov at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eli: > > >> Naively, you would expect that it would be legal to hoist the store... > >> but that breaks your coroutine semantics because the global could be > mutated > >> between the first return and the resume. > > Hmmm... I...

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Gor Nishanov <gornishanov at gmail.com> wrote: > >> If you're going down that route, that still leaves the question of the > >> semantics of the fork intrinsic... thinking about it a bit more, I think > >> you're going to run into problems with trying to keep around a return > block...

Hi Sanjoy: >> Now in the above CFG %val can be folded to 10, but in reality you need >> a PHI of 10 and 20 Quick answer: folding %val to 10 is OK, but, I would prefer it to be 'undef' or even catch it in the verifier as it is a programmer/frontend error. Details are in the second half of my reply. I would like to start with the thought experiment you suggested, as it might

...g/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/102133.html (Round 2) 2) Get agreement on how coroutine transformation passes integrate into the optimizer pipeline. (this mail) <=== WE ARE HERE .. repeat 2) until happy 3) update IR/Intrinsics.td + doc/Coroutines.rst + doc/LangRef.rst https://github.com/GorNishanov/llvm/blob/coro-rfc/docs/Coroutines.rst 4) trickle in coroutine transformation passes + tests in digestible chunks. 5) get clang changes in (sometime after step 3). 6) fix bugs / remove limitations / add functionality to coroutine passes .. repeat 6) until happy Overview: ========= LLVM coroutine...

Hi Eli: Thank you very much for your comments! >> If you need some sort of unusual control flow construct, make it a >> proper terminator instruction I would love to. I was going by the advice in "docs/ExtendingLLVM.rst": "WARNING: Adding instructions changes the bitcode format, and it will take some effort to maintain compatibility with the previous

Hi Eli: >> Block1: >> %0 = call i8 coro.suspend() >> switch i8 %0, label suspend1 [i8 0 %return] ; or icmp + br i1 >> Suspend1: >> switch i8 %0, label %resume1 [i8 1 %destroy1] ; or icmp + br i1 >> >> This doesn't look right: intuitively the suspend happens after the return >> block runs. Perhaps, but, that is not the intended

Hi David: >> How do you deal with basic blocks which appear to be used by multiple parts >> of the coroutine? We handled this in WinEHPrepare by cloning any BBs which >> were shared. I experimented with several approaches, but, cloning ended up being the simplest and most reliable. Suspend points express three different control flows that can happen at the suspend point: a