similar to: [LLVMdev] [Segmented Stacks] Week 1

On 11-05-30 07:20 AM, Sanjoy Das wrote: > Hi! > > I've attached my first week of work as a patchset for review. This is > also available on Github [1]. > > By next Monday I intend to (more or less) finish up the preliminary > parts concerning the codegen; and start working on the runtime (so that > I can do a basic sanity check). Thanks!. Some quick notes *) Maybe you

Guys, regarding alloca. not only are exceptions a problem here, but just plain old "longjmp". -Peter Lawrence. On Jun 1, 2011, at 10:00 AM, llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:55:07 -0400 > From: Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> > Subject: Re:

Hi! Attached my pre-midterm GSoC work for segmented stacks for review (with the required fixes). Thanks! -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-New-command-line-option-to-enable-segmented-stacks.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 1699 bytes Desc: not available URL:

On 11-06-02 07:47 PM, Peter Lawrence wrote: > Guys, > regarding alloca. > > not only are exceptions a problem here, but just plain old "longjmp". Yes, On IRC Sanjoy pointed out that it should be possible to handle this by changing longjmp. I am not sure it can be done in general. The alloca might have been called a dynamic number of times for example. In fact, now that I

Hi llvmdev! I've been working on implementing support for segmented stacks in LLVM (towards GSoC '11). Currently I'm working on adding intrinsics for coroutines. The problem is this: Till now I had been depending on libgcc for runtime support (and was being 100% libgcc compatible in the process). However, since all the stack allocation routines in libgcc depend on TLS variables to

Hi! > diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp b/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..5ffb8f2 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp > @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ > +//===-- StackSegmenter.h - Prolog/Epilog code insertion -------*- C++ -* --===// > > The comment is obviously incorrect. Thanks. So much for lifting file

Hi Sanjoy, The patch generally looks fine except for this part: diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp b/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5ffb8f2 --- /dev/null +++ b/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +//===-- StackSegmenter.h - Prolog/Epilog code insertion -------*- C++ -* --===// The comment is obviously incorrect. diff --git

Sorry for the delay in responding. On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Rafael Avila de Espindola wrote: > On 11-06-02 07:47 PM, Peter Lawrence wrote: >> Guys, >> regarding alloca. >> >> not only are exceptions a problem here, but just plain old "longjmp". > > Yes, > On IRC Sanjoy pointed out that it should be possible to handle this by > changing longjmp. I am

On Aug 23, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Sanjoy Das wrote: > Hi! > >> diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp b/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..5ffb8f2 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp >> @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ >> +//===-- StackSegmenter.h - Prolog/Epilog code insertion -------*- C++ -* --===//

Hi! > According to the patch you send, the pass is not doing anything: > > +bool StackSegmenter::runOnMachineFunction(MachineFunction &MF) { > + return false; > +} > + It is, in the next patch. diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp b/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp index 5ffb8f2..cc2ca87 100644 --- a/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp +++ b/lib/CodeGen/StackSegmenter.cpp

Current set of patches for my work on segmented stacks. Go / dragonegg seems to work when using this code (I still haven't run any rigorous tests yet). Thanks! (Also on https://github.com/sanjoy/LLVM/tree/segmented-stacks) -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name:

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:21:58PM -0400, Brian Hurt wrote: > Segmented stacks are exciting to me, but only if the stacklets can be > freed. Here's why: if segmented stacks allow for "infinite" stacks, tail > call optimization becomes a lot less important in functional languages- > still useful, but not live or die. We discussed this on IRC a while ago. IMHO it is

Hi llvm-dev! I have attached the current state of my GSoC work in patches [1] for review; this currently allows LLVM to correctly handle functions running out of stack space and variable sized stack objects. Firstly, since I think it is better to get things merged in small chunks, I'd like to have some specific feedback on where my work stands in terms of mergeability. Secondly, I had been

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:21:58PM -0400, Brian Hurt wrote: >> Segmented stacks are exciting to me, but only if the stacklets can be >> freed. Here's why: if segmented stacks allow for "infinite" stacks, tail >> call optimization becomes a lot less important in functional languages- >> still useful, but not

Hi Sanjoy, > I've been working on implementing support for segmented stacks in LLVM > (towards GSoC '11). Currently I'm working on adding intrinsics for > coroutines. The problem is this: > > Till now I had been depending on libgcc for runtime support (and was > being 100% libgcc compatible in the process). However, since all the > stack allocation routines in

On 08/10/2011 11:03 AM, Sanjoy Das wrote: > Hi! > > Attached my pre-midterm GSoC work for segmented stacks for review (with > the required fixes). Nice work! + extern bool EnableSegmentedStacks; Can you add a comment like the other declarations? I think the patch looks good. There are possible improvements, but the patch is already in an state where it can be tested and extended

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>wrote: > Hi llvm-dev! > > I have attached the current state of my GSoC work in patches [1] for > review; this currently allows LLVM to correctly handle functions running > out of stack space and variable sized stack objects. > > Firstly, since I think it is better to get things merged in

Hi! First of all, sorry for the delay. This about fixing the issue with having a the BB ending with a non-terminating instruction when compiling with segmented stacks. I'm not sure if having an isel pseudo instruction which is lowered into a RET and then a MOV would work better. LLVMTargetMachine::addCommonCodeGenPasses adds the ExpandISelPseudosPass before the PEI pass (so it boils down to

Hi! I've been working on coroutines for some time, and it seems you were right - it makes much more sense to have regular C (and assembly) code for handling coroutines. For instance, I'd otherwise would have to make an assumption about the threading model the platform has (or assume there are no threads at all, which prevents me from allowing goroutine like ("run parallel till you

> thanks for working on this! As far as I know, split stacks are the only thing > special to GCC Go, otherwise the generic GCC infrastructure was enough. If that > is true then you shouldn't need to do more than what you described above, except > for poking at things until they work of course! The usual source of trouble is > when front-ends trying to write things directly to