similar to: [LLVMdev] Stuck

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Stuck"

2010 Feb 28
0
[LLVMdev] Stuck
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at me.com> wrote: > In practice, so long as frame pointers are not elided, a handful of lines of > assembly per platform should get you a stack walker. If frame pointers are > elided, however, you're looking at parsing DWARF to find out where it was > saved, which is probably too expensive for the job. Unless
2008 Apr 29
2
[LLVMdev] getting started with IR needing GC
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > On 2008-04-28, at 21:19, Lane Schwartz wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com > > > wrote: > > > >>> If so, then a Collector plugin would need to have info about every > >>> supported backend
2008 Apr 29
2
[LLVMdev] getting started with IR needing GC
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > > If so, then a Collector plugin would need to have info about every > > supported backend lays out the runtime stack? > > Yes. This information is actually available in a target-independent > fashion with LLVM, so the Collector interface is target-independent. A > backend
2008 Jul 26
2
[LLVMdev] CollectorRegistry
2008/7/26 Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at me.com>: > I'm not sure the purpose of doing so—llvm::Collector (poorly named; > I'm open to suggestions) exists only in the compiler, not at runtime > in the compiled program. You should need access to it at runtime no > more than you might need access to an instance of llvm::TargetMachine. Maybe I don't understand the
2008 Apr 29
0
[LLVMdev] getting started with IR needing GC
On 2008-04-28, at 21:19, Lane Schwartz wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com > > wrote: > >>> If so, then a Collector plugin would need to have info about every >>> supported backend lays out the runtime stack? >> >> Yes. This information is actually available in a target-independent >>
2007 Sep 04
2
[LLVMdev] Garbage Collection Roots
On Sep 2, 2007 5:31 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > Hi Talin, > > On Sep 2, 2007, at 04:54, Talin wrote: > > > I've been looking through the documentation (http://llvm.org/docs/ > > GarbageCollection.html) on how to implement a garbage collector for > > LLVM and there's a couple of things that I don't quite understand. >
2008 Jul 26
0
[LLVMdev] CollectorRegistry
On Jul 26, 2008, at 12:14, Simon Ask Ulsnes wrote: > 2008/7/26 Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at me.com>: >> I'm not sure the purpose of doing so—llvm::Collector (poorly named; >> I'm open to suggestions) exists only in the compiler, not at >> runtime in the compiled program. You should need access to it at >> runtime no more than you might need
2016 Sep 16
2
LLVM v3.9.0 and math built-ins
A little while ago I asked a question on CFE-Dev about a change in the behaviour of programs using the ISO C math functions, although that question should have been put to LLVM-Dev. But I got excellent clarification of the problem anyway. However, since then I have been trying to adapt our out-of-tree implementation to get the previous behaviour. The problem is that something like: #include
2011 Nov 01
2
[LLVMdev] Adding a custom GC safe point creation phase
Thanks for the review Gordon. On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com>wrote: > On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it > wants to insert safe points. I'm not sure who maintains the GC code today > in LLVM (I'd be happy to take ownership, if
2008 Apr 28
2
[LLVMdev] getting started with IR needing GC
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > As for the compiler plugin interface, I suggest you ignore it > initially and use the provided shadow-stack option for the time being. > The shadow stack generates significantly suboptimal code, but will let > you avoid writing some platform-specific code. Instead, simply copy > the
2008 Nov 08
0
[LLVMdev] non-pointer gcroot
On Nov 7, 2008, at 15:29, Scott Graham wrote: > I'm getting an assert in LowerIntrinsics::InsertRootInitializers > because I'm gcroot'ing an alloca to a non-pointer. > > I was hoping to modify InsertRootInitializers to memset the > structure in the case that it's not a pointer, but I'm not sure how > to. Can anyone suggest what should go at "todo;
2011 Nov 01
0
[LLVMdev] Adding a custom GC safe point creation phase
On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:47 AM, Nicolas Geoffray <nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the review Gordon. > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it wants to insert safe points.
2008 Nov 07
2
[LLVMdev] non-pointer gcroot
Hi I'm getting an assert in LowerIntrinsics::InsertRootInitializers because I'm gcroot'ing an alloca to a non-pointer. I was hoping to modify InsertRootInitializers to memset the structure in the case that it's not a pointer, but I'm not sure how to. Can anyone suggest what should go at "todo; something here"? ... for (AllocaInst **I = Roots, **E = Roots +
2008 Sep 06
0
[LLVMdev] "has different visibility" warnings
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-August/016763.html On 2008-09-05, at 22:46, Talin wrote: > Recently I started getting these warnings - thousands of them - and > I'm > not sure what I did to cause them or how to solve them: > > ld: warning llvm::MemoryBuffer::getBufferStart() const has different > visibility (1) in
2007 Sep 02
0
[LLVMdev] Garbage Collection Roots
Hi Talin, On Sep 2, 2007, at 04:54, Talin wrote: > I've been looking through the documentation (http://llvm.org/docs/ > GarbageCollection.html) on how to implement a garbage collector for > LLVM and there's a couple of things that I don't quite understand. > Specifically, it says that when a stack variable goes out of scope, > you're supposed to assign a
2019 Jun 29
2
Avoiding alloca elision
Hello I'm implementing stack copying coroutines. It's an interesting challenge. When we use setjmp/longjmp to move between stacks, we must make sure that restoring the stack doesn't blow away the current stack frame before calling longjmp. To do that, we check how big the stack we are restoring is, and use alloca to push the current stack frame beyond that. It works but when I add
2016 Sep 20
4
LLVM v3.9.0 and math built-ins
Hi Mehdi, The ISO C specification does permit the math functions to modify ‘errno’, but I thought that the ‘-fno-math-errno’ option was to tell the optimiser to assume that ‘errno’ is not modified by the math functions. Explicitly providing ‘-fno-math-errno’ is not restoring the elision optimisation that was performed by LLVM v3.8, and this is really only a driver option, with ‘-fmath-errno’
2008 Sep 06
2
[LLVMdev] "has different visibility" warnings
Recently I started getting these warnings - thousands of them - and I'm not sure what I did to cause them or how to solve them: ld: warning llvm::MemoryBuffer::getBufferStart() const has different visibility (1) in /usr/local/lib/libLLVMSupport.a(MemoryBuffer.o) and (2) in /usr/local/lib/libLLVMSupport.a(CommandLine.o) ld: warning
2008 Oct 22
2
[LLVMdev] r57974 & r57976 for PR2888
Pending positive confirmation in http://llvm.org/PR2886, I'd recommend that r57974 and r57976 be pulled into the 2.4 release branch and configure regenerated there. Begin forwarded message: > From: Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> > Date: October 22, 2008 08:40:40 EDT > To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: [llvm-commits] [llvm] r57974 -
2008 May 13
2
[LLVMdev] Python bindings available.
On 2008-05-13, at 02:12, Mahadevan R wrote: >>> That's not how the object works... > > Gordon, I think I can make it work if we have the following additional > function in LLVM-C: > > LLVMModuleRef LLVMGetModule(LLVMModuleProviderRef MP) { > return wrap(unwrap(MP)->getModule()); > } Can I ask, how general is your solution? I only intended to use this