similar to: [LLVMdev] Thread local data and atomic instructions

On Saturday 21 November 2009 18:05:08 Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello > > > I need a shadow stack per thread and I'm not sure how to do that. Passing > > it everywhere seems like a bad idea. I could put it in a global thread id > > -> thread-local data mapping but that would incur lookup and locking > > every time I fiddle with it (which is often!). Is it

Hello > I need a shadow stack per thread and I'm not sure how to do that. Passing it > everywhere seems like a bad idea. I could put it in a global thread id -> > thread-local data mapping but that would incur lookup and locking every time > I fiddle with it (which is often!). Is it possible for me to create a global > using LLVM and mark it as thread local and use that

On Saturday 31 January 2009 03:42:04 Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst > > tweaking the command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 > > flag > > The -msse3 flag? Does the -msse2 flag have a similar effect? Yes: $

> How do you handle tail calls and value types? I haven't worried too much about optimisation yet, so it doesn't do anything special for tail calls (although neither does the java compiler). LLVM types are translated to their equivalent java primitive type (or currently it raises an assertion if there is no equivalent type). -- David Roberts http://da.vidr.cc/ On Sat, Nov 28, 2009

I've experienced GCC induced eyeball-clawing.... Not pretty! On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Sunday 05 April 2009 06:33:00 Rajika Kumarasiri wrote: > > FYI, > > http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1215438 > > > > -Rajika > > LOL: > > "In contrast, every time I look at the GCC

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 16 February 2010 03:51:00 Jianzhou Zhao wrote: >> Does anyone know if there is any realistic project using LLVM-OCaml >> Bindings? > > I've written a VM in OCaml built upon LLVM using LLVM's OCaml bindings: > >  http://www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/hlvm/ > > There

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Harrop" <jon at ffconsultancy.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 6:56 AM Subject: [LLVMdev] Performance vs other VMs > > The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark > the > performance of various VMs using the SciMark2

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Harrop" <jon at ffconsultancy.com> To: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: [LLVMdev] SSE examples > > Does anyone have any LLVM IR examples implementing things using the > instructions for SSE, like complex arithmetic or 3D vector-matrix stuff? > I don't have any examples... >

This is not a quite fair comparison. Other virtual machines must be doing garbage collection, while LLVM, as it is using C code, it is taking advantage of memory allocation by hand. On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark the > performance of various VMs using the

Is there a tool to spit LLVM's IR out in a more machine-friendly syntax like XML? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

Having implemented a GC for HLVM, I am now turning my attention to implementing a GC that supports parallelism. To do this, I would like to use atomic instructions as well as mutexes. What is the status of LLVM's atomic instrinsics (e.g. CAS)? Is anyone using them in real projects? I realised that an obvious test would be to compile some simple example programs with llvm-g++ instead of

Are there any papers in the works which benchmark some specification suite of C programs on GCC, LLVM-GCC, and CLANG? The only stuff I have seen so far are some bar charts in a few LLVM presentations, would be nice to have something a little more comprehensive. Cheers, Granville On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 16 June 2009

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 24 February 2010 03:58:03 Jianzhou Zhao wrote: >> I think LLVM OCaml bindings do not support JIT too much. > > Can you elaborate on this? I meant the OCaml bindings let OCaml call existing C++ LLVM routines, such as creating an execution engine, JIT-ing a function with existing JIT or

On Saturday 06 February 2010 02:42:47 Evan Cheng wrote: > On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: > >> Does anyone actually using it? > > > > Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. > > Ok, that's all I need to know. > > >> I'd prefer to just remove it to

On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: >> Does anyone actually using it? > > Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. Ok, that's all I need to know. > >> I'd prefer to just remove it to clean up the implementation if no one has >> any objections. > > Are you

Does anyone have any LLVM IR examples implementing things using the instructions for SSE, like complex arithmetic or 3D vector-matrix stuff? I'd like to have HLVM use them "under the hood" for some things but I cannot see all of the operations that I was expecting (e.g. dot product) and am not sure what works when (e.g. "Not all targets support all types however."). --

On Sunday 28 December 2008 05:53:55 Talin wrote: > The second solution is that when calling via a pointer, we always call > with the closure protocol, i.e. we include the hidden parameter. > However, when taking the address of a non-closure function, we actually > point to a stub function which strips off the hidden parameter before > calling the real function. This solution is

On Tuesday 16 February 2010 03:51:00 Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > Does anyone know if there is any realistic project using LLVM-OCaml > Bindings? I've written a VM in OCaml built upon LLVM using LLVM's OCaml bindings: http://www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/hlvm/ There are at least two other significant users of LLVM's OCaml bindings, AFAIK. > How is the performance? Performance

What happened to the HLVM project? I understand it was intended to be a high-level VM specifically for dynamic languages and this post indicates that it was integrated into the LLVM project last year: http://www.nabble.com/NEWS:-HLVM-merges-with-LLVM-td9627113.html But I cannot find any code in LLVM that looks like it would have come from HLVM. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy

As I understand it, first-class structs will allow structs to be passed as function arguments and returned as results (i.e. multiple return values) instead of passing pointers to structs. However, the GEP instruction only handles pointer types. So I do not understand how you will be able to extract the fields of a struct when it is received as a value type. Will the GEP instruction be altered