similar to: [pre-RFC] Data races in concurrent ThinLTO processes

Hi Katya Thanks for investigating this. Here is my thought inline. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 1:32 AM, katya.romanova at sony.com wrote: > > > Hello, > > I am sending the following proposal to discuss issues and solutions regarding data races in concurrent ThinLTO processes. > > This caught my attention when we encountered a race condition in ThinLTO with caching. >

Hi Steven, Look at my replies inline (below your comments). Katya. From: stevenwu at apple.com <stevenwu at apple.com> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 4:46 PM To: Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> Cc: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>; Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>; Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>; Peter Collingbourne

Le jeu. 22 mars 2018 à 16:46, Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com> a écrit : > Hi Katya > > Thanks for investigating this. Here is my thought inline. > > On Mar 22, 2018, at 1:32 AM, katya.romanova at sony.com wrote: > > > Hello, > > I am sending the following proposal to discuss issues and solutions > regarding data races in concurrent ThinLTO processes. >

Hi Peter, Thank you for the clarification ☺. I’m sure you have a very good understanding of how much efforts it will take to write a patch for legacy C LTO to implement caching the same way it’s done in new C++ LTO API. How easy/difficult do you think it will be (very roughly, in LOC)? Do you anticipate that a lot of existing legacy C LTO infrastructure will have to be rewritten? Could this also

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:03 PM, <katya.romanova at sony.com> wrote: > Hi Steven, > > Look at my replies inline (below your comments). > > Katya. > > > > *From:* stevenwu at apple.com <stevenwu at apple.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, March 22, 2018 4:46 PM > *To:* Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> > *Cc:* Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at

> On Mar 26, 2018, at 6:03 PM, katya.romanova at sony.com wrote: > > Hi Steven, > Look at my replies inline (below your comments). > Katya. > > From: stevenwu at apple.com <mailto:stevenwu at apple.com> <stevenwu at apple.com <mailto:stevenwu at apple.com>> > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 4:46 PM > To: Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com

> On Mar 26, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Le jeu. 22 mars 2018 à 16:46, Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com <mailto:stevenwu at apple.com>> a écrit : > Hi Katya > > Thanks for investigating this. Here is my thought inline. > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 1:32 AM, katya.romanova at sony.com

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:34 PM, <katya.romanova at sony.com> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > > > Thank you for the clarification J. > > > > I’m sure you have a very good understanding of how much efforts it will > take to write a patch for legacy C LTO to implement caching the same way > it’s done in new C++ LTO API. How easy/difficult do you think it will be >

From: stevenwu at apple.com <stevenwu at apple.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 11:58 PM To: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> Cc: Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com>; Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>; Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>; Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>; Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>; Reid

Hi Steven and Peter, I think we resolved all the misunderstanding/concerns that we had with the proposal and decided that we don’t have to implement heavy-weight synchronization solutions (such as read-write locks, etc). Lightweight solution is expected to work on MacOS and Windows (however, there might be issues with Windows supporting non-NTFS file systems). There are two options for the

I now have an implementation of FileOutputBuffer (OutputBuffer was already taken). The patch supports the functionality listed below and I've tested that it works for lld. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FileOutputBuffer.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 25308 bytes Desc: not available URL:

For the reasons listed in my 03-May-2012 email, I am proposing a new llvm/Support class for using in writing binary files: /// OutputBuffer - This interface provides simple way to create an in-memory /// buffer which when done will be written to a file. During the lifetime of /// these objects, the content or existence of the specified file is undefined. /// That is, creating an OutputBuffer

On May 8, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: >> For the reasons listed in my 03-May-2012 email, I am proposing a new >> llvm/Support class for using in writing binary files: >> >> /// OutputBuffer - This interface provides simple way to create an in-memory >> /// buffer

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > For the reasons listed in my 03-May-2012 email, I am proposing a new > llvm/Support class for using in writing binary files: > > /// OutputBuffer - This interface provides simple way to create an in-memory > /// buffer which when done will be written to a file. During the lifetime > of >

On May 8, 2012, at 3:52 AM, Gordon Keiser wrote: > FWIW, I'd be interested in working on the Windows implementation. I've been knee-deep in *nixes lately and wouldn't mind the refresher. J Cool! Does my proposed interface make sense to implement on top of Windows APIs? -Nick > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On

FWIW, I'd be interested in working on the Windows implementation. I've been knee-deep in *nixes lately and wouldn't mind the refresher. :) Gordon Keiser Software Development Engineer Arxan Technologies w:+1.765.889.4756 gkeiser at arxan.com www.arxan.com<http://www.arxan.com/> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Nick

On May 8, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 8, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > >> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: >>> For the reasons listed in my 03-May-2012 email, I am proposing a new >>> llvm/Support class for using in writing binary files: >>>

On May 3, 2012, at 6:10 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > Existing llvm code tends to use raw_ostream for writing files. But raw_ostream is not a good match for a linker for a couple of reasons: > > 1) When the linker creates an executable, the file needs the 'x' bit set. Currently raw_fd_ostream has no way to set that. If this were the only problem, I'd suggest just generalizing

Existing llvm code tends to use raw_ostream for writing files. But raw_ostream is not a good match for a linker for a couple of reasons: 1) When the linker creates an executable, the file needs the 'x' bit set. Currently raw_fd_ostream has no way to set that. 2) The Unix conformance suite actually has some test cases where the linker is run and the output file does exists but is not

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > I now have an implementation of FileOutputBuffer (OutputBuffer was already taken).  The patch supports the functionality listed below and I've tested that it works for lld. > > To implement the FileOutputBuffer, I needed to add some more functions to llvm/Support/FileSystem.h, including: >