similar to: [LLVMdev] sing segmented stack feature

Hi Sanjoy, > 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

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 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

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:21:58PM -0400, Brian Hurt wrote: > Segmented stacks are exciting to me, but only if the stacklets can be > freed. Here's why: if segmented stacks allow for "infinite" stacks, tail > call optimization becomes a lot less important in functional languages- > still useful, but not live or die. We discussed this on IRC a while ago. IMHO it is

Sorry for the delay in responding. On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Rafael Avila de Espindola wrote: > On 11-06-02 07:47 PM, Peter Lawrence wrote: >> Guys, >> regarding alloca. >> >> not only are exceptions a problem here, but just plain old "longjmp". > > Yes, > On IRC Sanjoy pointed out that it should be possible to handle this by > changing longjmp. I am

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:21:58PM -0400, Brian Hurt wrote: >> Segmented stacks are exciting to me, but only if the stacklets can be >> freed. Here's why: if segmented stacks allow for "infinite" stacks, tail >> call optimization becomes a lot less important in functional languages- >> still useful, but not

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:

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:

Hi All! This is the third iteration of my GSoC proposal, which I'm mailing here for feedback. I've already posted the proposal on Melange. The proposal is in two parts. The first, which answers the questions on application template mentioned on Melange is here [1]. I've pasted the most relevant part here: ''' Implement segmented stacks inside LLVM. Once this is

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

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

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! Attached a three part series which implements the very first bits of my GSoC proposal (full proposal is here http://pastebin.com/e9JMZNCE), for some preliminary review. -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-Adds-relevant-command-line-options.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 2021 bytes Desc: not

On 08/10/2011 11:03 AM, Sanjoy Das wrote: > Hi! > > Attached my pre-midterm GSoC work for segmented stacks for review (with > the required fixes). Nice work! + extern bool EnableSegmentedStacks; Can you add a comment like the other declarations? I think the patch looks good. There are possible improvements, but the patch is already in an state where it can be tested and extended

Hi Sanjoy, > I've been working on coroutines for some time, and it seems you were > right - it makes much more sense to have regular C (and assembly) code > for handling coroutines. For instance, I'd otherwise would have to > make an assumption about the threading model the platform has (or > assume there are no threads at all, which prevents me from allowing > goroutine

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 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++ -* --===//

On Oct 18, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Sanjoy Das wrote: > 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

Hi, First patch fixes a bug in x86-32 when generating code with split stacks. Second patch makes checking the stack limit a little more intelligent. OK to commit? Thanks! -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-Fix-a-bug-in-the-x86-32-code-generated-for-segmented.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 2714

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