search for: pizlo

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > > > On June 7, 2014 at 1:29:04 PM, Alp Toker (alp at nuanti.com) wrote: > > > On 07/06/2014 18:35, Filip Pizlo wrote: >> That would work. :-) >> >> What about exposing C API a function to query for the presence of an >>...

On 7 June 2014 00:14, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > The only setback is to ensure that we synchronize the renaming with WebKit. > > The WebKit->LLVM interface currently avoids revision-lock; you can take any > recent revision of either and build a working browser engine. This is mostly > true ev...

On 07/06/2014 18:35, Filip Pizlo wrote: > That would work. :-) > > What about exposing C API a function to query for the presence of an intrinsic? It seems with hindsight that the "experimental" prefix has turned out to be a waste of time. At least without the prefix there was a good chance this churn could b...

> On Aug 18, 2014, at 4:25 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > > > >> On Aug 18, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> On Aug 18, 2014, at 3:09 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>&...

...EntryGuardedByCond to check if we can speculatively execute load without causing a race. Is it heavy-handed solution for this problem? I can create a bug if you would like to. Thanks, Balaram From: Robin Morisset [mailto:morisset at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 7:40 PM To: Filip Pizlo Cc: Balaram Makam; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LICM promoting memory to scalar Ah right, I had missed the cbz, my bad. It is indeed sound under that condition. My point was that just hoisting/sinking unconditionally the memory accesses is unsound. It is good news that gcc l...

...s. If we do go down this > road, we should change passes like the inliner to use the > configuration object instead of constructor options. We should also > drop the "cl" from the names if it is not going to be handling command > lines :-) I’m curious if Tom Stellard or Filip Pizlo have any input on this as they are more directly involved on the client side. I do agree that we should ultimately drop the cl namespace if we’re going in this direction. -Chris > > Cheers, > Rafael

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2014, at 2:51 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 5, 2014, at 1:46 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.c...

...s function signature and not newest one. Could you please explain , why we can not use this freeMachineCodeForFunction for this purpose. If not, how we can hook some instruction in emitted machine code that will call back to our code in llvm. Thanks With regards Sri. On 04/26/2014 05:39 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote: This isn't currently supported directly. It depends on what you're doing, which JIT you're using, how you use modules, and to what extent you're relying on LLVM to do linking for you.  You can't safely drop a function's code if you have other functions in that module...

It might not be available, so all codepaths have to recover from zlib unavailability. For example, I don't think compressed DWARF works on Windows. On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > What is the downside of Zlib dependency? I'm curious! :-) > > -Filip > > On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:45 PM, Christophe Duvernois < > christophe.duvernois at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi > > Miniz (https://code.google.com/p/miniz/...

On April 25, 2014 at 10:48:18 AM, Reid Kleckner (rnk at google.com) wrote: On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: The sdiv operation in LLVM IR only makes sense for C and its very direct relatives.  The amount of control flow necessary to represent a safe division for any other language is ghastly.  (a/b) becomes something like (b != 0 ? ((a != INT_MIN || b != -1) ? a / b : I...

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 5, 2014, at 1:46 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> (7) Make the C API truly great. >>> >>> I think it’s harmful to LLVM in the long run if external embedders use the C++ API. I t...

On Oct 22, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > On 10/22/13 10:34 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote: >> On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/17/13 10:39 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >>>> This is a proposal for adding Stackmaps and Patchpoints to LLVM. The >>>> first client of these features is...

Once LLVM is built and used as a dylib, we'd just mark the zlib symbols as hidden. :-) I tend to think that bundling is ugly because it makes it harder for a distributor or integrator to pick the exact versions of all of the components in the system. I don't know if this was mentioned already, but maybe we can have a compromise where a configure option can be used to select between the

On Nov 8, 2013, at 9:36 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: >> Is the expectation that to utilize this metadata an optimization pass would have to inspect the body of @f and reason about its behavior given <args>? > > Yes. > >> >> If so, then I think this is pretty bad. If we ever want...

> On Nov 8, 2013, at 1:13 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: >> NEW PROPOSAL >> >> The solution is to introduce meta-data that is explicit about how the safe-to-execute condition ought to be evaluated. Instead of an SSA use, we can have meta-data that says: >> >> %v = load %p !notrap...

On Oct 22, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 22, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > >> On 10/22/13 10:34 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote: >>> On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >>> >>&gt...

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > NEW PROPOSAL > > The solution is to introduce meta-data that is explicit about how the > safe-to-execute condition ought to be evaluated. Instead of an SSA use, we > can have meta-data that says: > > %v = load %p !notrap !{ @f, &lt...

...-Filip > Instead, you probably want to consider something like the late safepoint placement approach we've been pushing. Hopefully, once the statepoint stuff lands, we can get that upstreamed fairly soon. > > Philip > >> >> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> > On Oct 10, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hello, >>> > >>> > I was wondering if there is an example list somewhe...

...when updating passes I will ensure that each pass that has cl::opts also has a default constructor, an overridden constructor to populate each option, and the corresponding factory methods for the C API. Does this sound reasonable for a first step? -Chris > On Aug 19, 2014, at 8:29 AM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 18, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com <mailto:beanz at apple.com>> wrote: > >> >>> On Aug 18, 2014, at 4:25 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com <mailto:fpizlo at apple.com>&...

...nction signature and not newest one. Could you please explain , why we can not use this freeMachineCodeForFunction for this purpose. If not, how we can hook some instruction in emitted machine code that will call back to our code in llvm. Thanks With regards Sri. On 04/26/2014 05:39 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote: > This isn't currently supported directly. It depends on what you're > doing, which JIT you're using, how you use modules, and to what extent > you're relying on LLVM to do linking for you. > > You can't safely drop a function's code if you have other...