similar to: [LLVMdev] making trampolines more portable

Eli Friedman wrote: > Also, for lack of an intrinsic, there's a relatively easy workaround: > you can declare a global containing the correct size, then link in a > small target-specific .bc with the definition right before code > generation. So why can't LLVM provide that global? I don't care whether it's a global, intrinsic, or whatever. If I have to provide

I'm not sure whether there are any other cases where using LLVM requires knowledge of the target architecture, but needing it for trampolines is worrying me. I'm putting together things where the program that's generating the LLVM intermediate code doesn't have any way to know what the target architecture will be. Right now I'm using alloca to get a block that is expected

Eli Friedman wrote: > I didn't say we wouldn't accept a patch. It's just that up until now > nobody has particularly cared because trampolines aren't used very > much. Fair enough. If I get to the point where I understand how to implement it cleanly, I'll submit a patch. Best regards, Eric

Taking the address of a function inhibits optimisations for that function. Essentially any ABI changes are unavailable if we can't adjust the call site to match. The case of interest here is when a given function is called directly and indirectly, and we don't want the latter to impose a cost on the former. One approach to avoid the ABI constraint cost is to extract/outline the body of an

Dear LLVM-Mailing list (again), I still have another beginners question in my mind - thank you for your patience. Again I was playing around, but this time with llvm::Function. In an older question I learned, that I can replace a llvm::Function directly with an address. llvm::Function *function = mainModue->getFunction("puts"); function->replaceAllUsesWith(

Hi Sanjoy, the first and last patches look good (except that you didn't add any tests for the auto-upgrade functionality). Comments on the other two below. > Attached patches split init.trampoline into adjust.trampoline and > init.trampoline, like in gcc. > > As mentioned in the previous mail, I've not made a documentation > patch, since I'm not sure about what the

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

Hi! Thank you for the detailed review. I've attached a new set of patches. -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-New-trampoline-intrinsics-for-LLVM.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 16783 bytes Desc: not available URL:

Hi! Attached patches split init.trampoline into adjust.trampoline and init.trampoline, like in gcc. As mentioned in the previous mail, I've not made a documentation patch, since I'm not sure about what the documented semantics of llvm.adjust.trampoline should be. Thanks! -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

AFAICs Simo's patch for bug 5535 was only applied to the 3.3 series. Does the closing comment in https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5535 mean that the inconsistencies about RID calculation won't be addressed in the 3.0 and 3.2 series? Does the fact that 3.3.2 always uses sambaNextRid mean that algorithmic RID allocation is doomed to obsolescence? Regards, Thierry

I understand that we need to push the address to a register then branch using the register. But i am asking why there is a trampoline there such that a call to foo is first branched to an snippet and the snippet branches to the X86CompilationCallback. is this snippet necessary ? Thanks Xin On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com>wrote: > The

Dear Mr. Northover, Thank you for the quick reply. You are correct about the address-mode operands :) . I guess an important detail left out was that the basic block (call it A) that wants to calculate the address of the target stationary trampoline basic block (call it B) will be moved around in memory during run-time. Our earlier solution, before the feature was implemented to move around (A)

The address of the callee may be more than 2 GB away in memory, which cannot be encoded as an immediate offset in the call instruction. So, the value is first materialized with a mov instruction which can encode the immediate and then jumped to through a register. Reid On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Xin Tong Utoronto <x.tong at utoronto.ca> wrote: > I have a question on the LLVM JIT

Anyone been able to get pgadmin3 installed on CentOS-4 ? The WxGTK2 stuff makes it impossible for me to get installed from RPM/SRPM from their site and likewise, couldn't rebuild from Fedora SRPMS either. I figure between Jim and Owen and ???, somebody might have succeeded where I would be doomed. I can get around with phppgadmin but pgadmin3 is pretty cool. Thanks Craig

I have a question on the LLVM JIT I did some brief memory reading one day and I found that a call to a non-library function is resolved by the X86CompilationCallback, but the X86CompilationCallback is reached through a trampoline. why can not the generated code jump to the X86CompilationCallback function directly ? 0x2b0a6a4d103b: mov $0x2b0a6a561010,%rax 0x2b0a6a4d1045:

Is it a bad practice to use a subversion repository to the trunk of rspec and rspec_on_rails? Or rather, is it doomed to fail, since my gem will always be out of date? I know I can''t use spec, installed from gem,s if I have the latest revision of rspec and rspec_on_rails checked into my plugins directory. But I should still be able to use it with the --drb option, correct?

Dear Developers, In current implementation of validity method, objects are first coerced to superclass (slots are striped). Thus, it is not possible to write validity method which would perform some checks on children slots. Say, I want to check if number of slots in a class is equal to "n": setClass("A", representation(a="numeric", n="integer"),

Hi Sanjoy, > Attached patches change how dragonegg lowers trampolines (for > compatibility with Go). I think the right approach is to add an llvm.adjust.trampoline intrinsic to LLVM (and change llvm.init.trampoline to not return a result). Then the dragonegg trampoline code will become trivial, and the Go problem will just Go away :) In fact this was how I first did it: two intrinsics,

Hi, > I'm parallelizing loops to be called by pthread. The thread body that I pass > to pthread_create looks like > > define i8* @loop1({ i32*, i32* }* nest %parent_frame, i8* %arg) > parent_frame is pointer to shared variables in original function > > 0x00007f0de11c41f0: mov (%r10),%rax > 0x00007f0de11c41f3: cmpl $0x63,(%rax) > 0x00007f0de11c41f6:

Commit-ID: 27ad55131385821dfe85b0320f4d6ba8861ab7e5 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/?p=libs/klibc/klibc.git;a=commit;h=27ad55131385821dfe85b0320f4d6ba8861ab7e5 Author: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> AuthorDate: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 22:56:59 +0100 Committer: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> CommitDate: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 17:33:29 +0100 [klibc] arch: Explicitly disable