similar to: [LLVMdev] Stack maps no longer experimental in 3.5

On 7 June 2014 00:14, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > The only setback is to ensure that we synchronize the renaming with WebKit. > > The WebKit->LLVM interface currently avoids revision-lock; you can take any > recent revision of either and build a working browser engine. This is mostly > true even when we change the stack map format because of versioning in the

On 07/06/2014 18:35, Filip Pizlo wrote: > That would work. :-) > > What about exposing C API a function to query for the presence of an intrinsic? It seems with hindsight that the "experimental" prefix has turned out to be a waste of time. At least without the prefix there was a good chance this churn could be avoided as long as the original review was sound, whereas the

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > > > On June 7, 2014 at 1:29:04 PM, Alp Toker (alp at nuanti.com) wrote: > > > On 07/06/2014 18:35, Filip Pizlo wrote: >> That would work. :-) >> >> What about exposing C API a function to query for the presence of an >> intrinsic? > > It seems with hindsight that the

This is a proposal for adding Stackmaps and Patchpoints to LLVM. The first client of these features is the JavaScript compiler within the open source WebKit project. A Stackmap is a record of variable locations (registers and stack offsets) at a particular instruction address. A Patchpoint is an instruction address at which space is reserved for patching a new instruction sequence at runtime.

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > The initial documentation and patches name these intrinsics in a > "webkit" namespace. This clarifies their current purpose and conveys > that they haven't been standardized for other JITs yet. If someone on > the on the dev list says "yes we want to use these too, just the way

On Oct 22, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > On 10/22/13 10:34 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote: >> On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/17/13 10:39 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >>>> This is a proposal for adding Stackmaps and Patchpoints to LLVM. The >>>> first client

On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > On 10/17/13 10:39 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >> This is a proposal for adding Stackmaps and Patchpoints to LLVM. The >> first client of these features is the JavaScript compiler within the >> open source WebKit project. >> > I have a couple of comments on your proposal. None of these

----- Original Message ----- > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Andrew Trick < atrick at apple.com > > wrote: > > > > The initial documentation and patches name these intrinsics in a > "webkit" namespace. This clarifies their current purpose and conveys > that they haven't been standardized for other JITs yet. If someone on > the on the dev

On 10/17/13 10:39 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > This is a proposal for adding Stackmaps and Patchpoints to LLVM. The > first client of these features is the JavaScript compiler within the > open source WebKit project. > I have a couple of comments on your proposal. None of these are major enough to prevent submission. - As others have said, I'd prefer an experimental namespace

On Oct 22, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 22, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > >> On 10/22/13 10:34 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote: >>> On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/17/13 10:39 PM, Andrew Trick wrote:

On 10/22/13 10:34 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote: > On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > >> On 10/17/13 10:39 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >>> This is a proposal for adding Stackmaps and Patchpoints to LLVM. The >>> first client of these features is the JavaScript compiler within the >>> open source WebKit project.

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

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

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

Andy - If you're not already following this closely, please start. We've gotten into fairly fundamental questions of what a patchpoint does. Filip, I think you've hit the nail on the head. What I'm thinking of as being patchpoints are not what you think they are. Part of that is that I've got a local change which adds a very similar construction (called

On May 2, 2014 at 11:53:25 AM, Eric Christopher (echristo at gmail.com) wrote: On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Philip Reames  <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote:  > Andy - If you're not already following this closely, please start. We've  > gotten into fairly fundamental questions of what a patchpoint does.  >  > Filip,  >  > I think you've hit the nail on

On 04/29/2014 12:39 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote: > On April 29, 2014 at 11:27:06 AM, Philip Reames > (listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>) wrote: >> On 04/29/2014 10:44 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote: >>> LD;DR: Your desire to use trapping on x86 only further convinces me >>> that Michael's proposed intrinsics are the best way to go.

On 04/29/2014 10:44 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote: > LD;DR: Your desire to use trapping on x86 only further convinces me > that Michael's proposed intrinsics are the best way to go. I'm still not convinced, but am not going to actively oppose it either. I'm leery of designing a solution with major assumptions we don't have data to backup. I worry your assumptions about

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Andy - If you're not already following this closely, please start. We've > gotten into fairly fundamental questions of what a patchpoint does. > > Filip, > > I think you've hit the nail on the head. What I'm thinking of as being > patchpoints are not what you think

> On Feb 11, 2016, at 12:43 AM, via llvm-dev <Alexander G. Riccio> wrote: > > I don’t think that we can agree to abstract code guidelines without knowing what it means in practice for the codebase. If you’re interested in this, please include a diff that shows the impact to the headers, and we should also measure what happens to the performance of the generated compiler. > >