search for: tangerobjbased

...se it violates the CFG. > So if I *don't* violate the CFG, would I still need to do something > close to "big and nasty"? It sounds like you're doing something STM like, have you contacted Torvald to see if he has ideas or insight? http://llvm.org/pubs/2008-02-23-TRANSACT-TangerObjBased.html -Chris > ; save the address of %otherPath to use later > call @llvm.checkpoint(label %otherPath) > ; trick the rest of the compiler to think data flows to both paths > *from here* > br i1 @opaqueButAlwaysTrue, label %normalPath, label %otherPath > > normalPath: &gt...

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > It sounds like you're doing something STM like, have you contacted > Torvald to see if he has ideas or insight? > http://llvm.org/pubs/2008-02-23-TRANSACT-TangerObjBased.html Yeah, this is TM-like with the begin/end/abort+rollback. Thanks for the pointer, but it seems like Tanger's implementation doesn't support explicit aborts probably "Because our txns never abort." So there wasn't a need to give a label to tanger_begin() to lead to an abort...

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > No. The reason we don't allow this is because it violates the CFG. So if I *don't* violate the CFG, would I still need to do something close to "big and nasty"? ; save the address of %otherPath to use later call @llvm.checkpoint(label %otherPath) ; trick the rest of the compiler to