similar to: [LLVMdev] nosegmentedstacks function attribute

Hi Sanjoy, > Now that LLVM has support for a larger attribute set, I think it is a > good idea to add one that stops LLVM from generating segmented stacked > version of a function. why? If some functions have segmented stacks, don't all functions called by it need segmented stacks too? Ciao, Duncan. While implementing it, I ran into an issue: > > Currently, with

On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 09:57:29AM +0100, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Sanjoy, > > > Now that LLVM has support for a larger attribute set, I think it is a > > good idea to add one that stops LLVM from generating segmented stacked > > version of a function. > > why? If some functions have segmented stacks, don't all functions called > by it need segmented stacks

Hi! I'm a GSoC student this year, working on implementing split stacks on LLVM. TL;DR: I'm facing some problems trying to get LLVM to generate the code I want, please help me out if you can spare some time. It involves the SelectionDAG, MachinsInstr and liveness analysis portions. I'm currently trying to implement alloca correctly. It essentially boils down to checking if the

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

On 11-06-17 10:31 AM, Sanjoy Das wrote: > Hi! > > I'm a GSoC student this year, working on implementing split stacks on LLVM. > > TL;DR: I'm facing some problems trying to get LLVM to generate the code > I want, please help me out if you can spare some time. It involves the > SelectionDAG, MachinsInstr and liveness analysis portions. > > > > I'm

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:

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:

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, 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 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! > Is SEG_ALLOCA marked as writing to RAX? It has RAX in its Defs list. > Is this code in github? It has been a long time since I looked at > selection dags, but I could take a look. It is up at https://github.com/sanjoy/llvm/tree/segmented-stacks > btw, have you got -view-isel-dags (and the other view dags options) > working? They are really handy for debugging this stuff.

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 All! I will be applying to the LLVM project for this GSoC, and I wanted some preliminary sanity check on my project idea. I intend to implement split (segmented) stacks for LLVM (like we have in Go, and as being implemented for GCC [1]). A lot of what follows is lifted from [1]; I will progressively add more details as I get more familiar with the LLVM codebase. I intend to start with

The first draft of the LLVM 3.0 release notes now done, in llvm/docs/ReleaseNotes.html (the web page isn't autoupdating at the moment). Please take a look and make corrections or enhancements as you see fit. There are still a few things that I need from specific people (marked with XXX's): - BillW is writing a blog about exception handling. - The llvm.expect intrinsic isn't documented

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

I wonder - would something like this allow for multiple stacks for a single thread? I'm thinking of something like continuations / fibers / green threads, which would be very handy. On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>wrote: > Hi All! > > I will be applying to the LLVM project for this GSoC, and I wanted some > preliminary sanity

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 llvmdev! I've been working on adding coroutines to LLVM. Mentioned below is the implementation plan I'm following, for suggestions, flames and other input. Using segmented stacks is a prerequisite. The idea is to associate every coroutine with a coroutine descriptor. A coroutine descriptor consists of four words: w0, w1, w2 and w3. w0 always contains the _launcher_, and invoking a

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