similar to: [LLVMdev] Segmented Stacks (re-roll)

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

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

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

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:

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). [1] https://github.com/sanjoy/llvm/tree/segmented-stacks -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com

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

Hi all! I've attached a corrected set of patches (based on the input I received here). Please let me know if this work looks mergeable. The documentation is only partially filled in, I'll add more details once support for Go is also merged (the current co-routine work I'm doing). Thanks! -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A

I started to implement inlining of the stack probe function based on Microsoft's inlined stack probes in https://github.com/Microsoft/llvm/tree/MS. Do we know why the stack pointer cannot be updated in a loop (which results in ideal code)? I noticed that was commented in Microsoft's code. I suspect this is due to debug or unwinding information, since it is allowed on Windows x86-32. I

Hello, I'd like to upstream our work over the time which the community would benefit from. This is a part of effort toward minimizing code size presented in here <https://llvm.org/devmtg/2020-02-23/slides/Kyungwoo-GlobalMachineOutlinerForThinLTO.pdf>. In particular, this RFC is about optimizing prolog and epilog for size. *Homogeneous Prolog and Epilog for Size Optimization, D76570

Hi Vedant, Thanks for your interest and comment. Size-optimization improves page-faults and a start-up time for a large application, which this enabling also followed. Even though I didn't see a large regression/complaint on a CPU-bound case, which is not a typical case for mobile workload, I wanted to be precautious of enabling it by default. However, as with default outlining case, I

On 08/25/2011 12:41 AM, Sanjoy Das wrote: > Hi all! > > I've attached a corrected set of patches (based on the input I > received here). Please let me know if this work looks mergeable. > > The documentation is only partially filled in, I'll add more details > once support for Go is also merged (the current co-routine work I'm > doing). > LGTM. Evan,

On Aug 26, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote: > On 08/25/2011 12:41 AM, Sanjoy Das wrote: >> Hi all! >> >> I've attached a corrected set of patches (based on the input I >> received here). Please let me know if this work looks mergeable. >> >> The documentation is only partially filled in, I'll add more details >> once

Hi James, I also think that refactoring the code generation part is a great idea. That code is very complicated and difficult to maintain. I’ve wanted to rewrite that code for a long time, but just have never got to it. There are quite a few edge cases to handle (at least in the current code). I’ll take a deeper look at your patch. The abstractions that you mention, Stage and Block, are good

Hi, Attached is a patch with arm neon optimizations for silk_warped_autocorrelation_FIX(). Please review. Thanks, Felicia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20170131/9a912bb4/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name:

Hi James: Personally, I like the idea of refactoring and more abstraction, But unfortunately, I don't know enough about the edges cases either. BTW: the prototype is still causing quite some Asseertions in PowerPC - some nodes are not generated in correct order. Best, Jinsong Ji (纪金松), PhD. XL/LLVM on Power Compiler Development E-mail: jji at us.ibm.com From: James Molloy <james at

Hi Jean-Marc, Thanks a lot for reviewing this huge assembly function! silk_warped_autocorrelation_FIX_c()'s kernel part is for( n = 0; n < length; n++ ) { tmp1_QS = silk_LSHIFT32( (opus_int32)input[ n ], QS ); /* Loop over allpass sections */ for( i = 0; i < order; i++ ) { /* Output of allpass section */ tmp2_QS = silk_SMLAWB(

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! >> LGTM. >> >> Evan, anything else? > > Nope. > So is this work getting merged? Thanks! -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com

I'm trying to implement something similar to this: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks in LLVM. The reason I want this is so that I can have dynamically growing and shrinking stacks in my programming language. In order to do this, I need to be able to check for overflow of a stack frame. The methods of doing this are outlined in the link above, but my intention is to pass the current stack