similar to: [LLVMdev] Using LLVM with a new runtime environment

Thanks for the feedback. I think both of the suggestions are very reasonable. I’ll incorporate them. Given there were no objections for two weeks, I’m going to go ahead with posting individual patches for review. One small question inline: On Sep 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com<mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: In general, I am

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>wrote: > On 10/25/13 1:10 PM, Ben Karel wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at azulsystems.com>wrote: > >> Hi Rafael, Andrew, >> >> Thank you for the prompt reply. >> >> One approach we've been considering involves

I need to be able to detect a well-behaved loop. (i.e one where exp1 assigns a value to an int i, exp2 compares i with a loop constant, exp3 adjusts i by a loop constant, and the inner block has no assignments to i.) I need this because in Sun's Java VM garbage collection only takes place at safepoints, so a potentially unbounded loop must call safepoint() some time. However, safepoints are

Hi all, I don't know if I understand everything, but it seems really interesting for a runtime developer, stackmap and patchpoint looks perfect for a lot of optimizations :) I just have few question to verify if I understand what are these stackmaps and patchpoints, and I discuss the GC after. * I have a first very simple scenario (useful in vmkit). Let's imagine that we want to lazily

I'm moving this to a different thread. I think the newly proposed intrinsic definitions and their current implementation are valuable regardless of how it gets tied into GC... On Oct 22, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Adding Gael as someone who has previously discussed vmkit topics on the list. Since I'm assuming this is where the GC support

On 02/24/2014 11:27 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Feb 24, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com > <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > >> >> On 02/24/2014 12:45 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 21, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Philip Reames >>> <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at

You may also take a look at the ELLCC project (www.ellcc.org <http://www.ellcc.org/>). As far as I understand it they produce and package cross toolchains for a number of popular targets. - Matthias > On Aug 4, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On 8/4/17 1:14 PM, Goran Mekić via llvm-dev wrote: >> On

Hi We have 2 servers running samba 1 is linux 7 /samba 4.2.3 1 is linux 6 /samba 3.6.23-25.0.1 Both are joined to a Windows Domain Both use ADS for security (we use CAC on the client) Recently users of the samba 3.6 shares have been having trouble connecting The issue seems to be theclient registry setting :

The long term plan is a) evolving, and b) dependent on the specific use case. :) It would definitely be nice if we could support both early and late safepoint insertion. I see no reason that LLVM as a project should pick one or the other since the infrastructure required is largely overlapping. (Obviously, I'm going to be mostly working on the parts that I need, but others are always

Are there any rationalies to make queries obtained by joining scope to be readonly? I read some old posts (pre-rails3) that joins adds additional columns to record so that ActiveRecord doesn''t know how to update that fields, but actually I don''t see that fields. For example I write model class Order < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :executors, class_name:

On Jul 19, 2011, at 10:06 AM, Peter Lawrence wrote: > Talin, > how about having the front-end generate an llvm.safe.point() intrinsic call at > the desired safe points, and having the addresses of the GC roots (at that point, > can vary from call to call) be the parameters (with noescape attribute) to the intrinsic, > > IIUC currently the GC roots are tagged, and all

TLDR: a proposal to add GC-parseable lowering to element atomic memcpy/memmove instrinsics controlled by a new "requires-statepoint” call attribute. Currently llvm.{memcpy|memmove}.element.unordered.atomic calls are considered as GC leaf functions (like most other intrinsics). As a result GC cannot occur while copy operation is in progress. This might have negative effect on GC latencies

Adding more people to the thread. I am currently not able to analyze the logs. On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Bishoy Mikhael <b.s.mikhael at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Talur, > > I've successfully got Gluster deployed as a DaemonSet using k8s spec file > glusterfs-daemonset.json from > https://github.com/heketi/heketi/tree/master/extras/kubernetes > > but then when I

Hi Martin, Philip covered all of it very well, I'll just add one minor comment: > More generally, can I back up and ask an important question? Do you have to > support deoptimization (i.e. osr side exits) in any form? If you do, you'll > probably want to avoid the PlaceSafepoints utility pass. If you need to PlaceSafepoints is inadequate only if you have asynchronous

Awesome! I got lld running but it GCed all my sections away. :-) I'll keep experimenting with it. ~Scott On Mon, May 1, 2017, at 07:11 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 30 April 2017 at 23:47, Scott Shawcroft via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Ok, thanks! I got it going that way. I'd still love to hear from anyone > > off list working on similar

At Google we're doing a lot of work on parallel programming models for CPUs, GPUs and other platforms. One place where we're investing a lot are parallel libraries, especially those closely tied to compiler technology like runtime and math libraries. We would like to develop these in the open, and the natural place seems to be as a subproject in LLVM if others in the community are

Hi Talur, I've successfully got Gluster deployed as a DaemonSet using k8s spec file glusterfs-daemonset.json from https://github.com/heketi/heketi/tree/master/extras/kubernetes but then when I try deploying heketi using heketi-deployment.json spec file, I end up with a CrashLoopBackOff pod. # kubectl get pods NAME READY STATUS RESTARTS AGE

>Postprocessing (ie: running a tool on the fully linked binary with the debug info we have today, and having the tool reprocess the debug info to make it more >compact) is an option, but wouldn't help address the problem you started with - that the output can't fit the large offsets, so the output is invalid/broken. So that >output would be broken before the postprocessing step

Hi Hal, Thanks for taking a look at the proposal. The current version of StreamExecutor has partial support for a "host" platform which performs work on the CPU. It's interface is the same as the that of the CUDA platform discussed in the design documentation, but right now it does not support launching user-defined kernels, so it is very limited. The host platform does manage a

TLDR. For anyone who is using the RewriteStatepointsForGC utility pass, there is a recent change you should know about which may require you to make some small changes to your stackmap parsing. I have landed a small series of patches which change how we're handling vector of pointers when reporting live pointers for the GC at safepoints. Previously, the RS4GC pass was attempting to