similar to: [LLVMdev] Adding a custom GC safe point creation phase

Thanks for the review Gordon. On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com>wrote: > On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it > wants to insert safe points. I'm not sure who maintains the GC code today > in LLVM (I'd be happy to take ownership, if

On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:47 AM, Nicolas Geoffray <nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the review Gordon. > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it wants to insert safe points.

On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it wants to insert safe points. I'm not sure who maintains the GC code today in LLVM (I'd be happy to take ownership, if needed). > > The patch just adds up a custom safepoints flag, similar to the way the GCStrategy can customize intrinsics lowering, or

On Oct 6, 2011, at 17:19, Yiannis Tsiouris wrote: > Hello all, > > I set: InitRoots = true; in my gc plugin as i want the roots to be > initialized to the "null" value. > Is there a way to define which value should be the initial one? For > example, i would like to initialize my roots to -5 (tagged, null value > for the GC in my runtime system) instead of 0. >

On 02/24/2014 11:27 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Feb 24, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com > <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > >> >> On 02/24/2014 12:45 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 21, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Philip Reames >>> <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at

Hi all, I have implemented a GC plugin and i want to exclude Tail-call instructions from being considered as Safe Points. For that reason I have overwritten the "findCustomSafePoints" function with something like that: bool ErlangGC::findCustomSafePoints(GCFunctionInfo &FI, MachineFunction &MF) { for (MachineFunction::iterator BBI = MF.begin(),

Hi all, In order to support linking AsmWriter separately from CodeGen, the Collector class (a CodeGen component) had to be decoupled from the AsmWriter interface. This required moving the beginAssembly and endAssembly methods to a separate abstract base class. If you had overridden these methods, your class may compile successfully but fail at runtime with a message of the form:

Hi all, I don't know if I understand everything, but it seems really interesting for a runtime developer, stackmap and patchpoint looks perfect for a lot of optimizations :) I just have few question to verify if I understand what are these stackmaps and patchpoints, and I discuss the GC after. * I have a first very simple scenario (useful in vmkit). Let's imagine that we want to lazily

Now that the statepoint changes have landed, I wanted to start a discussion about what's next for GC support in LLVM. I'm going to sketch out a strawman proposal, but I'm not set on any of this. I mostly just want to draw interested parties out of the woodwork. :) Overall Direction: In the short term, my intent is to preserve the functionality of the existing code, but migrate

I'm moving this to a different thread. I think the newly proposed intrinsic definitions and their current implementation are valuable regardless of how it gets tied into GC... On Oct 22, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Adding Gael as someone who has previously discussed vmkit topics on the list. Since I'm assuming this is where the GC support

Adding Gael as someone who has previously discussed vmkit topics on the list. Since I'm assuming this is where the GC support came from, I wanted to draw this conversation to the attention of someone more familiar with the LLVM implementation than myself. On 10/22/13 4:18 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > On Oct 22, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com > <mailto:fpizlo

Hello all, I set: InitRoots = true; in my gc plugin as i want the roots to be initialized to the "null" value. Is there a way to define which value should be the initial one? For example, i would like to initialize my roots to -5 (tagged, null value for the GC in my runtime system) instead of 0. Ofcourse, i could do it in the frontend (storing -5 to all GC roots), but i was wondering

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 all, This patch adds a GCModuleInfo field to the MachineFunction class, to facilitate the retrieval of a potential GCFunctionInfo attached to the function. The motivation for the change is to get access in a proper way to the GC info when generating the function with the JIT. Currently, retrieving this information requires a lot of hacks (eg VMKit's code

A couple people have asked about this, so I wanted to describe my proposals for improving LLVM's garbage collection intrinsics. Currently the llvm.gcroot intrinsic associates a set of GC metadata with a value, specifically a value produced by an alloca instruction. In the proposed scheme, GC metadata would instead be associated with a *type*. The most general approach would be to introduce a

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > 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

On 02/24/2014 12:45 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com > <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > >> >> On 02/14/2014 05:55 PM, Philip Reames wrote: >>> Splitting out a conversation which started in "make DataLayout a >>> mandatory part of Module" since the

Thanks for the example code. Its gives a good idea how the shadow stack works. But I have another question. Using the shadow stack is a nice and simple way to implement GC, but it might have a large runtime overhead per function call. Is there another way to preserve garbage specific information (gcroots) through the llvm optimizer and native code generator? This information could be used to

Hi, I noticed that in line 288-289 of lib/CodeGen/GCStrategy.cpp there is a loop: > for (Function::iterator BB = F.begin(), E = F.end(); BB != E; ++BB) { > for (BasicBlock::iterator II = BB->begin(), E = BB->end(); > II != E;) { E is used both for F.end() and for BB->end(). Is this intended? -Y. -- Yiannis Tsiouris Ph.D.

I have a problem where my LLVM-generated code works on Linux but not on OS X, and the problem involves non_lazy_ptr. I have an external symbol named "@gc_safepoint_map", which is generated by the linker's GCStrategy plugin. Since it is not generated until link time, I declared it as an external symbol so that the modules that use it can compile without error. Here's what the