Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "uncaptured".
2015 Jul 14
3
[LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken
...e I don't have any other
> > than bootstrap)
>
> Sounds great if we can do this without causing a regression in
> practice.
Personally, I'm comfortable with moving to a contractual obligation for the escaping uses situation: No pass may capture the address of a (previously-uncaptured) global (even locally) without notifying the AA infrastructure. I can't think of any in-tree pass that does this now, although we might certainly have some in the future. Can you think of any we have now?
I'd really like to get the AA pass that Sam Parker has been working on (http://review...
2016 May 30
5
[GSoC 2016] Capture Tracking Improvements - BackgroundInformation
Hey Scott,
There has been quite a lot of research on capture tracking (aka escape
analysis) for Java and other dynamic languages.
See e.g.:
https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/HotSpot/EscapeAnalysis
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/vm/performance-enhancements-7.html
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=320384.320386
Nuno
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Egerton via
2011 May 17
3
[1.3.20]-Capture The Mouse Works Great. Suggestion...
[1.3.20]-Capture The Mouse Works Great. Suggestions...
Hi,
I've been crying for a long time about mouse issues
while running a full screen game in an emulated desktop window,
but with newest Wine these issues are gone.
Would it be possible to have some hot key
that the user can press to uncapture the mouse?
For example, VirtualBox toggles mouse capture
by pressing the right [Ctrl] key on
2016 Jun 09
2
[GSoC 2016] Capture Tracking Improvements - BackgroundInformation
...orce ordering, IIRC majnemer had an example
of this), but I don't think LLVM's model specifies.
If I know something is unescaped:
>> - I can change the representation of the contents. (Even if the pointer
>> *value* has been captured.)
>>
>> If I know something is uncaptured:
>> - I can change the address of the allocation (but not the internal layout
>> of the contents.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/07/2016 12:56 PM, Nuno Lopes wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Philip,
>>>
>>> I think it's important to know where/...
2008 May 01
2
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
...this is done there is no witness to the
internal heap limit variable.
3. Progressive application of dead variable elimination will then delete
the entire chain of updates to the heap limit variable, eliminating the
side effects that would normally be induced by malloc(). They will also
delete the uncaptured pointer result from malloc().
4. Since the result pointer is not captured, and the heap limit variable
is not consulted, the entire result of the call to malloc() is the
return of a non-NULL pointer.
5. Constant folding then reduces the IF condition (malloc() == NULL) to
false.
6. Dead code elim...
2008 May 01
0
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
...rnal heap limit variable.
>
> 3. Progressive application of dead variable elimination will then
> delete
> the entire chain of updates to the heap limit variable, eliminating
> the
> side effects that would normally be induced by malloc(). They will
> also
> delete the uncaptured pointer result from malloc().
>
> 4. Since the result pointer is not captured, and the heap limit
> variable
> is not consulted, the entire result of the call to malloc() is the
> return of a non-NULL pointer.
>
> 5. Constant folding then reduces the IF condition (malloc() ==...
2008 Apr 30
0
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
On Apr 30, 2008, at 5:20 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 15:25 -0400, David Vandevoorde wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>>> Daveed:
>>>
>>> Perhaps I am looking at the wrong version of the specification.
>>> Section
>>> 5.1.2.3 appears to refer to objects having volatile-qualified type.
2008 Apr 30
5
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 15:25 -0400, David Vandevoorde wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > Daveed:
> >
> > Perhaps I am looking at the wrong version of the specification.
> > Section
> > 5.1.2.3 appears to refer to objects having volatile-qualified type.
> > The
> > type of malloc() is not volatile qualified in the
2015 Jul 14
7
[LLVMdev] GlobalsModRef (and thus LTO) is completely broken
Ok folks,
I wrote up the general high-level thoughts I have about stateful AA in a
separate thread. But we need to sort out the completely and horribly broken
aspects of GlobalsModRef today, and the practical steps forward. This email
is totally about the practical stuff.
Now, as to why I emailed this group of people and with this subject, the
only pass pipeline that includes GlobalsModRef, is