similar to: [LLVMdev] gcroot only in entry block?

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

Hello, I am running a i7 MacBook Pro 2011. If I write: @g = global double 0.000000e+00 define i32 @main() { entry: %0 = load double* @g %1 = fmul double 1.000000e+06, %0 store double %1, double* @g ret i32 0 } in test.ll and I run > llc test.ll > gcc test.s I get: test.s:12:no such instruction: `vmovsd _g(%rip), %xmm0' test.s:13:no such instruction: `vmulsd LCPI0_0(%rip),

The linker is going off in the weeds trying to parse the dwarf unwind info. The CIE has: Leh_frame_common_begin0: .long 0 ## CIE Identifier Tag .byte 1 ## DW_CIE_VERSION .asciz "zLR" ## CIE Augmentation .byte 1 ## CIE Code Alignment Factor .byte 120 ## CIE Data Alignment

This is an interesting problem. The GC code is being converted into 'invokes' instead of calls: define i32 @main() gc "shadow-stack" { entry: %gc_frame = alloca %gc_stackentry.main %gc_currhead = load %gc_stackentry** @llvm_gc_root_chain %gc_frame.map = getelementptr %gc_stackentry.main* %gc_frame, i32 0, i32 0, i32 1 store %gc_map* getelementptr inbounds (%gc_map.0*

Hi, Is this correct behaviour? test.ll: declare {} @__ex__print_int(i64) define i32 @main() { entry: %0 = call i64 @f.1() %1 = call {} @__ex__print_int(i64 %0) ret i32 0 } define internal fastcc i64 @f.1() { entry: ret i64 7 } > opt -std-compile-opts test.ll -S ; ModuleID = 'test.ll' define i32 @main() noreturn nounwind { entry: tail call void @llvm.trap()

Hi, When calling a function, does the llvm code generator support passing structured types (arrays, structs, etc.) by _value_? I wrote some small examples, and it seemed to work, but I was wondering if anything can go wrong if the structured types are very large... Thanks, N

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Nicolas Ojeda Bar <nojb at math.harvard.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > When calling a function, does the llvm code generator support passing structured types (arrays, structs, etc.) by _value_? I wrote some small examples, and it seemed > to work, but I was wondering if anything can go wrong if the structured types are very large... It should work; the

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Nicolas Ojeda Bar <nojb at math.harvard.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > Is this correct behaviour? > > test.ll: > > declare {} @__ex__print_int(i64) > > define i32 @main() { > entry: >  %0 = call i64 @f.1() >  %1 = call {} @__ex__print_int(i64 %0) >  ret i32 0 > } > > define internal fastcc i64 @f.1() { > entry: >

Hello, This is a little off-topic. But I am writing a compiler to llvm ir for a language that admits recursive nested functions and am stuck as to how to translate them. Concretely, I'm trying to lift them all to the topmost level and pass all their free variables explicitly as arguments. To do this, I have to determine all their free variables in their bodies. In particular when I come

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

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 >>

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 < >

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

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

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 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

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

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 yield much in the way of an answer. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Todd

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: >> >>