similar to: [LLVMdev] Question about Doc patch

On Apr 20, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On 2008-04-20, at 21:05, Terence Parr wrote: > >> On Apr 20, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: >> >>> Since the semispace heap doesn't actually work (it's an example, >>> at best), I suggest you simply copy the stack visitor into your >>> project; it's only a dozen lines of

Hi Terence, I think you're getting hung up on the details of the shadow stack collector. The shadow stack is a GC that is possible within this framework, but of course could be implemented without any special support. Its presence is more misleading than anything else. Taking a step back, the concepts are: llvm.gcroot instructs the code generator --> My GC needs to be able to

Hi again Terence, On Apr 22, 2008, at 15:20, Terence Parr wrote: > Sorry for the long questions...gotta figure this out. Not a problem! > On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> On Apr 21, 2008, at 20:09, Terence Parr wrote: >> >>> Ok, I *might* be getting this from the assembly code. ... From >>> that, it will push/pop in

On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On Apr 21, 2008, at 20:09, Terence Parr wrote: > >> Ok, I *might* be getting this from the assembly code. ... From >> that, it will push/pop in functions? If so, that's easy enough. :) > > Yup! Sounds like you've got it. Yup, what i was missing and what somebody should add to the doc is that

Howdy do LLVM folks! I've exhausted what I can do on my own to make a GC example bind (usual googling, reading, playing, looking at source). I can't find the shadow collector lib or perhaps the -l options needed to link my sample (not even to point where I'm figuring out GC actually as I can't link). Not sure this IR is correct but here is what I've been playing

On Apr 21, 2008, at 20:09, Terence Parr wrote: > Ok, I *might* be getting this from the assembly code. ... From > that, it will push/pop in functions? If so, that's easy enough. :) Yup! Sounds like you've got it. > What I was/am missing is the explicit link between types and > variables in a GC.c file and the generated machine code. If I can > get that last

On 2008-04-20, at 21:05, Terence Parr wrote: > On Apr 20, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> Since the semispace heap doesn't actually work (it's an example, at >> best), I suggest you simply copy the stack visitor into your >> project; it's only a dozen lines of code or so. > > > Ok, copying; can't find ShadowStackEntry though.

Ok, I *might* be getting this from the assembly code. The assembly code has: L_llvm_gc_root_chain$non_lazy_ptr: .indirect_symbol _llvm_gc_root_chain .long 0 and I see it being used in the function preamble. Is that a ref to an extern symbol or the def? I.e., is it referring to StackEntry *llvm_gc_root_chain; that I must have in my GC C code? (semispace.c has it) SO!

On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > If you'd like to propose clarified language once you've wrapped your > head around the framework, I'd be happy to incorporate it. Most > ideally, submit a patch against GarbageCollection.html in http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/docs/ > . Cool. Ok, I have already submitted some svn diffs to Chris to fix

On Apr 20, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > The shadow stack walker is in the runtime directory with the semispace > heap example. The runtime directory is built to LLVM IR using llvm- > gcc. So it's skipped unless you configure llvm with llvm-gcc support. doh! That's how I missed the binary. thanks! > Since the semispace heap doesn't actually work (it's

Howdy, I just finished a book called Language Implementation Patterns but I ran out of room at 400 pages before I could squeeze in an LLVM example. I left a link in the book to the ANTLR wiki so I can slap something together: http://www.antlr.org/wiki/display/ANTLR3/LLVM The code is good but the description was slapped together I'm afraid (i.e., don't take it as an example of the book

Hi Terence, On 2008-04-20, at 20:08, Terence Parr wrote: > I've exhausted what I can do on my own to make a GC example bind > (usual googling, reading, playing, looking at source). I can't find > the shadow collector lib or perhaps the -l options needed to link my > sample (not even to point where I'm figuring out GC actually as I > can't link). The shadow

I'm trying to add gcoot functionality to my code and I'm confused by why gcroot is assuming to be an i8** I'm using i32 as object and array pointers and if I make them i8 things seem to work. I'm generating IR much like http://llvm.org/docs/GarbageCollection.html#llvm-ir-features void @llvm.gcroot(i8** %ptrloc, i8* %metadata) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Hi, Talin wrote: > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to llvm.gcroot, > which says it must be a pointer alloca. I'm not sure whether that means it > must be an alloca (which is always a pointer by definition) or an alloca > *of* a pointer. I'm pretty sure it should be "alloca of a pointer", as the first argument of llvm.gcroot has type i8**.

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl>wrote: > Hi, > > Talin wrote: > > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to llvm.gcroot, > > which says it must be a pointer alloca. I'm not sure whether that means > it > > must be an alloca (which is always a pointer by definition) or an alloca > > *of* a

On 04/27/10 00:20, Talin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis > <llvm at assumetheposition.nl <mailto:llvm at assumetheposition.nl>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Talin wrote: > > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to > llvm.gcroot, > > which says it must be a pointer alloca. I'm not sure whether

Hi Chris, Chris Lattner wrote: > I don't think you want to try to have the LLVM code generator build this > table. The table is a contract between the specific codegen you're using > and the GC runtime you're using. This contract is specific to the current > ocaml code generator. > > In the LLVM world, you should use the first-class support we already have

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl>wrote: > On 04/27/10 00:20, Talin wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Talin wrote: >> > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to llvm.gcroot, >> > which says it must be

On 04/29/10 21:27, Talin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Paul Melis > <llvm at assumetheposition.nl <mailto:llvm at assumetheposition.nl>> wrote: > > On 04/27/10 00:20, Talin wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis >> <llvm at assumetheposition.nl <mailto:llvm at assumetheposition.nl>> wrote: >> >>

Hi Terence, The reason I remarked, actually, is that for LLVM in particular the C+ + API offers more safety, and emitting .ll generally requires at least partially reimplementing the IR object model. I think this is a topic in the FAQ. But both are perfectly valid approaches! - Gordon On Apr 23, 2008, at 14:04, Terence Parr <parrt at cs.usfca.edu> wrote: > Gordon reminded me that