similar to: [LLVMdev] Recommended order between llvm.gcroot and llvm.dbg.declare?

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > I think I'm one of the few people actually using LLVM's support for garbage > collection, and so far I've found it very difficult to generate code that > uses llvm.gcroot() correctly. > > In the current scheme, it is the frontend's responsibility to insure that > any intermediate SSA

Hi Talin, I think that the framework for GC assumes llvm.gcroot to be in the first block. If it is not the case in your example, it will break these assumptions. Nicolas On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm working on the code to handle GC tracing of "intermediate values" (as > described in the GC doc), and I've run into a

I think I'm one of the few people actually using LLVM's support for garbage collection, and so far I've found it very difficult to generate code that uses llvm.gcroot() correctly. In the current scheme, it is the frontend's responsibility to insure that any intermediate SSA values containing references to garbage collectible objects are copied to stack variables so that the GC

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:51 AM, nicolas geoffray < nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't have unions in mind - indeed you need some kind of static > information in such a case. The GC infrastructure in LLVM having so little > love, I think it is good if you can improve it in any ways, as well as > defining new interfaces. So the patch is OK then? All it does

I didn't have unions in mind - indeed you need some kind of static information in such a case. The GC infrastructure in LLVM having so little love, I think it is good if you can improve it in any ways, as well as defining new interfaces. Cheers, Nicolas On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 1:04 AM, nicolas geoffray < >

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think I'm one of the few people actually using LLVM's support for >> garbage collection, and so far I've found it very difficult to generate code >> that uses llvm.gcroot() correctly. >> >> In

I'm working on the code to handle GC tracing of "intermediate values" (as described in the GC doc), and I've run into a weird problem. (Note, this has nothing to do with the patch I have proposed, this error occurs with regular old pointer-allocas.) The exception I am getting occurs in this code here in SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp: *case* *Intrinsic*::gcroot: *if* (GFI) {

I'm moving this thread to llvm-dev in the hopes of reaching a wider audience. This patch relaxes the restriction on llvm.gcroot so that it can work with non-pointer allocas. The only changes are to Verifier.cpp - it appears from my testing that llvm.gcroot always worked fine with non-pointer allocas, except that the verifier wouldn't allow it. I've used this patch to build an

Hi Talin, On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Many languages support the notion of a "value type". Value types are always > passed by value, unlike reference types which are always passed by > pointer. An example is the "struct" type in C#. Another example is a "tuple" > type. A value type which is a

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 1:04 AM, nicolas geoffray < nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Talin, > > On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Many languages support the notion of a "value type". Value types are >> always passed by value, unlike reference types which are always passed by >>

On 04/29/10 21:27, Talin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Paul Melis > <llvm at assumetheposition.nl <mailto:llvm at assumetheposition.nl>> wrote: > > On 04/27/10 00:20, Talin wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis >> <llvm at assumetheposition.nl <mailto:llvm at assumetheposition.nl>> wrote: >> >>

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:44 AM, nicolas geoffray < nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the heads up Chris. > > Talin, how is your GC dealing with non-pointers (be it allocas or not)? > What is the use-case (either in C or LLVM)? > Many languages support the notion of a "value type". Value types are always passed by value, unlike reference types

On 04/27/10 00:20, Talin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis > <llvm at assumetheposition.nl <mailto:llvm at assumetheposition.nl>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Talin wrote: > > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to > llvm.gcroot, > > which says it must be a pointer alloca. I'm not sure whether

Hi, Talin wrote: > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to llvm.gcroot, > which says it must be a pointer alloca. I'm not sure whether that means it > must be an alloca (which is always a pointer by definition) or an alloca > *of* a pointer. I'm pretty sure it should be "alloca of a pointer", as the first argument of llvm.gcroot has type i8**.

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl>wrote: > On 04/27/10 00:20, Talin wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Talin wrote: >> > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to llvm.gcroot, >> > which says it must be

Thanks for the heads up Chris. Talin, how is your GC dealing with non-pointers (be it allocas or not)? What is the use-case (either in C or LLVM)? Nicolas On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 22, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Talin wrote: > > I'm moving this thread to llvm-dev in the hopes of reaching a wider > audience. > >

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl>wrote: > Hi, > > Talin wrote: > > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to llvm.gcroot, > > which says it must be a pointer alloca. I'm not sure whether that means > it > > must be an alloca (which is always a pointer by definition) or an alloca > > *of* a

On Sep 22, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Talin wrote: > I'm moving this thread to llvm-dev in the hopes of reaching a wider audience. > > This patch relaxes the restriction on llvm.gcroot so that it can work with non-pointer allocas. The only changes are to Verifier.cpp - it appears from my testing that llvm.gcroot always worked fine with non-pointer allocas, except that the verifier

I'm trying to track down the problem with the assertion failure in SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp. This is the code: *case* *Intrinsic*::gcroot: *if* (GFI) { *const* Value *Alloca = I.getArgOperand(0); *const* Constant *TypeMap = cast<Constant>(I.getArgOperand(1)); * FrameIndexSDNode *FI = cast<FrameIndexSDNode>(getValue(Alloca).getNode());*

Hi Talin, On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > > > In the current scheme, the way you tell LLVM that a root is no longer > needed is by assigning NULL to it. However, that assumes that all roots are > pointers, which is not true in my world - a root can be a struct containing > pointers inside of it. (In my current frontend, a non-pointer