similar to: [LLVMdev] Detecting mutex locks (and unlocks)

Mon Ping Wang wrote: > Thanks for the info. My impression is that __sync_synchronize takes > no arguments and is the memory barrier, i.e., > "llvm.memory.barrier(i1 true,i1 true,i1 true,i1 true,i1 true)". Is > that right? That's my understanding as well. > I would like a little finer control to express just a > write barrier (st-st) or a read barrier.

Hi Luke, What you say makes sense but I'm not sure it is a good way to go. If we are using a gcc function name __sync_synchronize, I generally feel like we should support it with exactly the same signature and not try to extend it. Otherwise, it might lead to some confusion in the future unless they also plan to extend it the same way. -- Mon Ping On Sep 17, 2008, at 1:14 PM,

TLDR: Figuring out whether a declaration is a TLI LibFunc is slow.  We hammer that path in CGP.  I'm proposing storing the ID of a TLI LibFunc in the same IntID field in Function we use for IntrinsicID to make that fast. Looking into a compile time issue during codegen (LLC) for a large IR file, I came across something interesting.  Due to the presence of a very large number of intrinsics in

Hi Chris, Function is currently 108 bytes large. Could 4 more bytes really be an issue? Actually 2 should suffice. While I understand that some applications value storage more than anything, many applications value compilation time very highly. getIntrinsicID is called all over the place (isIntrinsic uses it as well), and every single time it checks the function name. To me that sounds a lot

2013/7/31 JF Bastien <jfb at google.com>: > Hi, > > TL;DR: should we add a new memory ordering to fences? > > > ``fence seq_cst`` is currently use to represent two things: > - GCC-style builtin ``__sync_synchronize()`` [0][1]. > - C11/C++11's sequentially-consistent thread fence > ``std::atomic_thread_fence(std::memory_order_seq_cst)`` [2]. > > As far

Hi Sanjoy, > Attached set of patches splits llvm.init.trampoline into an "init" > phase and an "adjust" phase, as discussed on the "Go on dragonegg" > thread. thanks for doing this. The patches look good, though the decomposition into individual patches is not that great (since things won't always work, in fact not even compile I think, with not all

Thanks for the info. My impression is that __sync_synchronize takes no arguments and is the memory barrier, i.e., "llvm.memory.barrier(i1 true,i1 true,i1 true,i1 true,i1 true)". Is that right? I would like a little finer control to express just a write barrier (st-st) or a read barrier. -- Mon Ping On Sep 17, 2008, at 5:50 AM, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16,

On 07/15/2015 07:05 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Xin Tong" <trent.xin.tong at gmail.com> >> To: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com> >> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 6:35:11 PM >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LICM

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Robert L. Bocchino Jr. wrote: > I just updated from CVS, and after doing a clean rebuild I get this error: Are you sure that no conflicts prevented updating from going smoothly? How are you building (srcdir ==/!= objdir)? -Chris > /Users/bocchino/llvm-checkin/src/include/llvm/IntrinsicInst.h: In static > member function 'static bool

I just updated from CVS, and after doing a clean rebuild I get this error: /Users/bocchino/llvm-checkin/src/include/llvm/IntrinsicInst.h: In static member function 'static bool llvm::DbgInfoIntrinsic::classof (const llvm::IntrinsicInst*)': /Users/bocchino/llvm-checkin/src/include/llvm/IntrinsicInst.h:77: error: 'dbg_declare' is not a member of 'llvm::Intrinsic'

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Robert L. Bocchino Jr. wrote: > I did a utils/cvsupdate, and there are no conflicts. srcdir != objdir. This > is on persephone. > > Are you not getting this error? Perhaps I should check out a fresh tree and > try to compile it? Nope, I don't think anyone else is getting this error. If you could try a fresh build that would be great, I'll fire

Hi Jeffrey, Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a test that checks for the old behavior would be pointless. I realize that my patch would return an unmatching intrinsicID when the function's name changes, but the real question we should ask is do we really want to be able to change the intrinsicID by changing the function's name? Also, the original Function constructor

I did a utils/cvsupdate, and there are no conflicts. srcdir != objdir. This is on persephone. Are you not getting this error? Perhaps I should check out a fresh tree and try to compile it? Rob On Apr 7, 2006, at 11:40 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Robert L. Bocchino Jr. wrote: >> I just updated from CVS, and after doing a clean rebuild I get >> this

(I'm assuming you're building LLVM with clang, in this case?) Looks like IntrinsicInst is one of those "lies" in LLVM that works via type punning that's undefined behavior in C++, so it's code that should be fixed anyway. In any case, the reason this produces the debugging experience you're seeing is that LLVM (& GCC, for that matter) assumes that if your class

struct { volatile int flag; int value; } s; int get_value_when_ready() { while (s.flag) ; __sync_synchronize(); return s.value; } This is "valid" legacy code on some processors, yet it's not valid to replace __sync_synchronize with an atomic_thread_fence because, in theory, LLVM could hoist the load of s.value. In practice it currently doesn't, but it may in the

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:37 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > Ok. > > I'm basically just following the model of the other fast-isel ports. > Yeah, not your fault - just an architectural quirk. It's possible we could workaround the debug info side of this by declaring the virtual dtor (or some other virtual function - even an explicit anchor as we have

OK, when I copy $(SRCDIR)/include/llvm/Intrinsics.gen to $(OBJDIR)/ include/llvm/ by hand after building (and failing) once, the build succeeds. This is definitely a makefile bug. Rob On Apr 7, 2006, at 11:40 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Robert L. Bocchino Jr. wrote: >> I just updated from CVS, and after doing a clean rebuild I get >> this error: > >

I'm guessing the problem occurred because I hadn't updated in a while (maybe a couple of weeks?) and I had an old Intrinsics.gen file hanging around in my source directory that was getting picked up by the makefile for some reason. This is a bug, but maybe it's harmless because there's a onetime workaround (delete the file by hand) and it won't be a problem for

I've done several CVS head builds today .. no problems on Linux. Reid. On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 11:53 -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Robert L. Bocchino Jr. wrote: > > > I did a utils/cvsupdate, and there are no conflicts. srcdir != objdir. This > > is on persephone. > > > > Are you not getting this error? Perhaps I should check out a fresh

i think attributes have taken control flow into account. I think readnone and nounwind functions are not safe to speculative execute because the function could run indefinitely, e.g. an infinite loop. -Xin On Tuesday, July 14, 2015, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > On 07/14/2015 10:25 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >>