search for: storefield

...n so that the correct address is used (exactly like the JIT function callback compiles a method and patch the call) Now there is one issue to deal with here: how to represent the intrinsic? It can either be 1) llvm.getfieldptr.{type} or 2) have two kinds of intrinsics llvm.getfield.{type} and llvm.storefield.{type}. I'd prefer using 1) since its closer to the LLVM instruction set (GetElementPtrInst), however there may be some tricky issues on where and how the callback function must patch the code. For example, how are move instructions (for spilling registers) inserted in LLVM? By choosing 1), c...

...dress is used (exactly like the JIT > function callback compiles a method and patch the call) > > Now there is one issue to deal with here: how to represent the > intrinsic? It can either be 1) llvm.getfieldptr.{type} or 2) have two > kinds of intrinsics llvm.getfield.{type} and llvm.storefield.{type}. > > I'd prefer using 1) since its closer to the LLVM instruction set > (GetElementPtrInst), however there may be some tricky issues on where > and how the callback function must patch the code. For example, how > are > move instructions (for spilling registers) inse...

...'t know yet if it would be in the target > dependent > or target independent part). > > Now there is one issue to deal with here: how to represent the > intrinsic? It can either be 1) llvm.getfieldptr.{type} or 2) have two > kinds of intrinsics llvm.getfield.{type} and llvm.storefield.{type}. I don't think this is really the right way to go. Can you give an example snippet of Java code that would need this and what you are proposing? With a concrete example that shows how the lazy class loading stuff works we can talk about different possibilities, -Chris

...ly like the JIT >> function callback compiles a method and patch the call) >> >> Now there is one issue to deal with here: how to represent the >> intrinsic? It can either be 1) llvm.getfieldptr.{type} or 2) have two >> kinds of intrinsics llvm.getfield.{type} and llvm.storefield.{type}. >> >> I'd prefer using 1) since its closer to the LLVM instruction set >> (GetElementPtrInst), however there may be some tricky issues on where >> and how the callback function must patch the code. For example, how >> are >> move instructions (for...