similar to: [LLVMdev] gcroot intrinsic

On 8 June 2011 17:20, Anderson, Todd A <todd.a.anderson at intel.com> wrote: > I’ve been tinkering around with some llvm assembly trying out some of the > GC related features. When I add a call to @llvm.gcroot, it is consistently > acting like it doesn’t know what that function is. I’m just getting started > so it is probably something small and simple but some googling didn’t

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 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

Solved by using alloca i8*, i32 2 which the system seems happy enough with, and bitcasting to the actual type for rest of the code after llvm.gcroot. Not entirely sure if this is a terrible workaround or exactly the way gcroot is supposed to be used... On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Nikodemus Siivola < nikodemus at random-state.net> wrote: > I'm allocating { i8*, i32 } on the

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

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 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 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

So I understand now that calls to llvm.gcroot have to be in the first block. (Might be a good idea to mention this in the GC docs). For each local variable that is created, there are 5 possible steps. 1. Allocate the storage for the variable using alloca(). 2. Declare the variable as a root via llvm.gcroot. 3. Initialize the variable to zero. 4. Declare the DWARF debugging info for

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

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

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 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

I'm allocating { i8*, i32 } on the stack, and would like to add this as a GC root, but I'm having trouble figuring this out. This works as expected: declare void @llvm.gcroot(i8** %ptrloc, i8* %metadata) define i8* @bar(i8* %x) gc "shadow-stack" { entry: %objptr = alloca i8* call void @llvm.gcroot(i8** %objptr, i8* null) store i8* %x, i8** %objptr %v = load i8*, i8**

Hi, If I type define i32 @main() gc "shadow-stack" { entry: %0 = alloca i8* %1 = call i8* @malloc(i64 1) store i8* %1, i8** %0 call void @llvm.gcroot(i8** %0, i8* null) ret i32 0 } declare i8* @malloc(i64) declare void @llvm.gcroot(i8**, i8*) nounwind in test.ll and then do > llc test.ll > gcc test.s I get the error ld: in

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 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, 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

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