similar to: [LLVMdev] any documents for the poolalloc project?

Hi Jianzhou, The best source of documentation for the poolalloc project remains Chris Lattner's dissertation: http://llvm.org/pubs/2005-05-04-LattnerPHDThesis.html Chapter 5 specifically if you'd like information on the poolalloc transformation. In addition to the thesis, there is also a brief manual for information on data structure analysis:

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language > reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and > atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM 3.0? Hopefully, yes; the implementation is in progress. -Eli

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> In

Another quick question. In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). Is that for back-compatibility to support OCaml < 3.10.0? On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language >> reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and >> atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:10 PM, David Gardner <daveg at xmos.com> wrote: > Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou <at> seas.upenn.edu> writes: >> The documents say that all the aa analysis are chained, and give an >> example like opt -basicaa -ds-aa -licm. In this case, does ds-aa >> automatically call basicaa for the case when ds-aa can only return >> MayAlias? This

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> In

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>> In the definition of 'monotonic' ordering, >>> ... "If an address is written

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi all, > > http://www.llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#BuildRecType suggests > us to define recursive types via opaque and refine. Since LLVM has > structural types, %rt = type { %rt* } and %rt1 = type { %rt* } should > be same structurally. I tested the following code, > > %rt =

Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou <at> seas.upenn.edu> writes: > The documents say that all the aa analysis are chained, and give an > example like opt -basicaa -ds-aa -licm. In this case, does ds-aa > automatically call basicaa for the case when ds-aa can only return > MayAlias? This looks magic to me. Is this handled by AnalysisGroup > magically? As I understand it, the

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> The current memory model section ends with the following discussions: >> >> "Note that in cases where none of the atomic intrinsics are used, this >> model places only one restriction on

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: >> I see. I asked the question because LLVM provides several alias >> analysis, and I was wondering how to decide which one should be used >> for compiling most programs. >> >> I think the basicaa is the default one, but by looking

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> On

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> Another quick question. >> In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when >> ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). >> Is that for

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > The current memory model section ends with the following discussions: > > "Note that in cases where none of the atomic intrinsics are used, this > model places only one restriction on IR transformations on top of what > is required for single-threaded execution: introducing a store to a

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> In the definition of 'monotonic' ordering, >> ... "If an address is written monotonically by one thread, and other >> threads monotonically read that address repeatedly, the other

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > In the definition of 'monotonic' ordering, > ... "If an address is written monotonically by one thread, and other > threads monotonically read that address repeatedly, the other threads > must eventually see the write"... It's supposed to mean that if you have a something

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > At the code below from > ./bindings/ocaml/executionengine/executionengine_ocaml.c, > we create an OCaml Variant from C. It is from 2.6, the latest 2.7 has > the same code. > > Line 240 Option = alloc(1, 1) assigns tag1 to the 'some' constructor. > In term of

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Another quick question. > In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when > ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). > Is that for back-compatibility to support OCaml < 3.10.0? At the time, we were still supporting 3.09. It sounds like everyone's

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Some instructions are not implemented in the interpreter. For example, > extractvalue, insertvalue, load/store aggregate pointers, bitcast > between vectors and ints. Is this only the limitation of the current > release? or is there any technical reason that the interpreter has to > omit these