search for: outliv

Hi all, Is there a function attribute or otherwise way to query whether a function could write to memory that outlives itself? For example writing to a global or memory passed in via a function argument would be writing to memory that outlives the function, but writing to a stack variable or allocation that isn't returned would not. Cheers, Billy Moses -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachm...

Hi, I have a question about semantics of nocapture attribute: "This indicates that the callee does not make any copies of the pointer that outlive the callee itself. " Is returing a pointer considered outliving callee? For example is this code valid: define i8* @foo(i8* nocapture %p) ret i8* %p } The documentation also mention that " This is not a valid attribute for return values.", but I interpret that it is is about thi...

...17:58 GMT+02:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>: > > > On 04/28/2017 10:22 AM, Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi, > I have a question about semantics of nocapture attribute: > "This indicates that the callee does not make any copies of the pointer > that outlive the callee itself. " > Is returing a pointer considered outliving callee? For example is this > code valid: > > > Yes, it includes returning the pointer. The code below is invalid. The > return value outlives the callee itself. > > > define i8* @foo(i8* nocapture %p...

Regarding the nocapture attribute the language ref says: "the callee does not make any copies of the pointer that outlive the callee itself". >From I inferred that it is OK for the callee to make a copy of the pointer that doesn't outlive the call. However if I write some code that does this the optimizers don't do what I'd expect. Consider the following the example: declare void @g(i32** %p,...

Hi Richard, I think it is a bug. Ciao, Duncan. On 08/10/12 14:34, Richard Osborne wrote: > Regarding the nocapture attribute the language ref says: "the callee does not > make any copies of the pointer that outlive the callee itself". From I inferred > that it is OK for the callee to make a copy of the pointer that doesn't outlive > the call. However if I write some code that does this the optimizers don't do > what I'd expect. Consider the following the example: > > declare v...

...10/8/2012 8:54 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Richard, I think it is a bug. > > Ciao, Duncan. > > On 08/10/12 14:34, Richard Osborne wrote: >> Regarding the nocapture attribute the language ref says: "the callee >> does not >> make any copies of the pointer that outlive the callee itself". From I >> inferred >> that it is OK for the callee to make a copy of the pointer that >> doesn't outlive >> the call. However if I write some code that does this the optimizers >> don't do >> what I'd expect. Consider the fol...

Hello, Attached is the proposal that I have submitted. I would be grateful for any and all feedback provided. Many Thanks, Scott -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GSoc Proposal 2016 - Scott Egerton.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 391088 bytes Desc: GSoc Proposal 2016 - Scott Egerton.pdf URL:

I'm running Fedora14 on all machines, including my wife's -- and I'm the nearest (distant) thing there is to tech support. She's far more likely to outlive me than I her; so I want to install something requiring a lot less maintenance on her machine, so that she'll have it and be used to it, years ahead of need. I'm thinking CentOS 6, whenever it's ready, is probably my best choice. Any thoughts? (And yes, I do mean what my .sig says...

...CL, then try to take an exclusive lock on the whole file (we already use file locks to limit max connections, so this change wouldn't add any new requirements to rsyncd). If we can't get the lock, then abort, and if we can, then truncate the file and write our PID into it. Since locks never outlive the process that took them, this fixes the stale pid file problem. Does this seem like a reasonable idea? If so, I'll write and submit a patch that implements it. Joseph C. Sible

...5 release notes here: http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html The description of nocapture is a bit funny: "... pointer arguments to functions that access through but do not return the pointer in a data structure that out lives the call" I think it needs s/return/retain/ and s/out lives/outlives/ > In addition, many APIs have changed in this release. Some of the major LLVM API changes are: The ones I encountered were: - The syntax of Intrinsics*.td changed in an incompatible way; Intrinsic<[llvm_i32_ty, llvm_ptr_ty, llvm_ptr_ty]> used to mean the return type was i32 and the p...

...s: (i32* %p, 18446744073709551615), (i32** %q, 18446744073709551615), (i32* %0, 18446744073709551615) 1 Unknown instructions: void <badref> Cheers, Roel > Regarding the nocapture attribute the language ref says: "the callee > does not make any copies of the pointer that outlive the callee itself". > From I inferred that it is OK for the callee to make a copy of the > pointer that doesn't outlive the call. However if I write some code that > does this the optimizers don't do what I'd expect. Consider the > following the example: > > decl...

...JITMemoryManager and keeping that around, but the execution engine takes ownership of it (maybe to prevent this behaviour?). My second question is about how to embed a reference to a c/c++ function into LLVM-generated code. I'm only interested in the JIT case, so this code doesn't have to outlive the generating executable's lifetime. The way i think this can be achieved is to cast a pointer to this function to an int, insert it into the generated code via ConstantInt, then use inttoptr to cast it back to the correct function type and call it. Is there a more direct way of doing this?...

...wrote: >> Hi Richard, I think it is a bug. >> >> Ciao, Duncan. >> >> On 08/10/12 14:34, Richard Osborne wrote: >>> Regarding the nocapture attribute the language ref says: "the callee >>> does not >>> make any copies of the pointer that outlive the callee itself". From I >>> inferred >>> that it is OK for the callee to make a copy of the pointer that >>> doesn't outlive >>> the call. However if I write some code that does this the optimizers >>> don't do >>> what I'd...

Hi, > > - r = ttm_bo_reserve(&bo->tbo, true, false, NULL); > > + r = reservation_object_lock_interruptible(bo->gem_base.resv, NULL); > Can you elaborate a bit about how TTM keeps the BOs alive in, for > example, virtio_gpu_transfer_from_host_ioctl? In that function, only > three TTM functions are called: ttm_bo_reserve, ttm_bo_validate, and >

Hi, > > - r = ttm_bo_reserve(&bo->tbo, true, false, NULL); > > + r = reservation_object_lock_interruptible(bo->gem_base.resv, NULL); > Can you elaborate a bit about how TTM keeps the BOs alive in, for > example, virtio_gpu_transfer_from_host_ioctl? In that function, only > three TTM functions are called: ttm_bo_reserve, ttm_bo_validate, and >

Hello, I've set-uped a Linux server in a small office, around 10 users, there is an old novel server, running version 3.12. My task was to establish an alternative for the old server, for the case It suddenly didn't feel like working anymore (you see, it's a Pentium Pro 200, it outlived itself at least a few times over). So basically, everybody have access to it using IPX ( it's that old!) and mount volumes under windows, so I set-up Samba on the Linux machine, made sure everybody can see it, and access it, launch their applications and there were no language problems....

...ncoder_create(struct drm_device *dev, > + int encoder_type, > + const char *name, ...) > +{ > + char *namestr = NULL; > + struct drm_encoder *encoder; > + int ret; > + > + encoder = devm_kzalloc(dev->dev, sizeof(*encoder), GFP_KERNEL); The encoder can outlive the devres if the device is unbound when userspace has open fds, so you can't use devm_ here. Noralf. > + if (!encoder) > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > + > + if (name) { > + va_list ap; > + > + va_start(ap, name); > + namestr = kvasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, name, ap); &gt...

...al: lsof -c R -c sleep it will show that both the R and sleep processes have the file open: ... R 324 root 3w REG 0,48 0 4259 /foo.txt ... sleep 327 root 3w REG 0,48 0 4259 /foo.txt This behavior can cause problems if R spawns a child process that outlives the R process, but keeps open some resources. Would it be possible to add an option to close file descriptors for child processes? It would be nice if that were the default, but I suspect that making that change would break a lot of existing code. To take an example from the Python world, subpr...

...o_validate, and > > > ttm_bo_unreserve. I am curious how they keep the BO alive. > > > > It can't go away between reserve and unreserve, and I think it also > > can't be evicted then. Havn't checked how ttm implements that. > Hm, but the vbuf using the BO outlives the reserve/unreserve section. > The NO_EVICT flag applies only when the BO is still alive. Someone > needs to hold a reference to the BO to keep it alive, otherwise the BO > can go away before the vbuf is retired. Note that patches 14+15 rework virtio_gpu_transfer_*_ioctl to keep gem...

...t; like that. Even then, I suspect most ML implementations would > actually push that stuff onto the heap. Common Lisp has (declare (dynamic-extent ..)). But IMHO this is not a language-dependent issue. Rather, whenever any language front-end using LLVM recognizes some (union) object can not outlive the call, it would be a significant optimization if LLVM would support stack-allocating the object. > The *real* solution is to make root-ness a function of type. > In other words, you can mark any type as being a root, which > exposes the base address of all obje...