similar to: [LLVMdev] Thoughts on maintaining liveness information for stackmaps

I think what's happening is BranchFolder::MaintainLiveIns is using a forward analysis on top of these missing kill flags, and updating the BB-live-ins/live-outs with an incorrect set of registers. Then when the stackmaps liveness analysis happens, it's not doing anything wrong, but it starts with the wrong set of live registers and will propagate those to the point of the

I don't believe the changes have made it in yet. In addition to the previous patch set, we've got an independent implementation we've been using for a while: https://github.com/AzulSystems/llvm-late-safepoint-placement We really should get one or the other merged in tree. Could you point me to the previous patch set so I can ping it and review? Philip -------- Original Message

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

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

This is a follow up on a conversation some of us had at the hacker lab -- I noticed that sometimes I will get notified that a deopt value lives in a register that is not callee-save (caller-save I guess, but is there another term for this that is less similar to callee-save?). This surprised me quite a bit since those registers immediately got clobbered by the call inside the patchpoint, so we

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

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.

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 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

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

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

Sounds good. I will add that to the StackMap documentation when I update it for v2. —Juergen > On Jul 10, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > No, but I've noticed that it is true in practice, and so I think that we should say something about it one way or another. Especially since, in switching to a fixed-size record format, binary searching now

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.

I have a few questions about the new ORC JIT. I saw Lang Hames (hi!) excellent talk at the llvm-dev meeting a few weeks ago. The ORC JIT is undergoing some API changes and I'd like/need to take advantage of them. (1) How do I take ownership of the ObjectFile once the ORC JIT has created it? I'd like to take ownership of object files generated by the ORC JIT so that I can save them to

Dear All My MSc was about implementing some kind of On stack replacement in LLVM to enhance security by obfuscating running code periodically. I've tried to implement this job in JIT, but I couldn't. So I implemented it in interpreter, as an initial step. However, now I'm trying to make it in JIT. My first step is to extract function state at an arbitrary point. So, I interrupt

Hi Rob, Robert Lyerly wrote: > At a high level, I'm interested in finding the locations of all values > that are live at a given call site.**You can think of it like a > debugger, e.g. gdb -- I'd like to be able to unwind the stack, frame by > frame, and locate all the live values for each function invocation > (i.e., where they are in a function's stack

Hi All, TLDR: Allow calling conventions to be defined on-the-fly for functions in LLVM-IR, comments are requested on the mechanism and syntax. Summary ======= This is a proposal for adding a mechanism by which LLVM can be used to generate code fragments adhering to an arbitrary calling convention. Intended use cases are: generating code intended to be called from the shadow of a stackmap or

Hi, I implemented a garbage collector for a language I wrote in college using the llvm gc statepoint infrastructure. Information for statepoints: https://llvm.org/docs/Statepoints.html Example usage of parsing the llvm stackmap can be found at: https://github.com/dotnet/llilc/blob/master/lib/GcInfo/GcInfo.cpp https://llvm.org/docs/StackMaps.html#stackmap-format

Hi Christian Your use case seems to have similar requirements as remote JITing in ORC. So far I haven't used that part myself and I am sure Lang can tell you much more about it. However, this comment on the RemoteObjectClientLayer class sounds promising for your questions (1) and (2): /// Sending relocatable objects to the server (rather than fully relocated /// bits) allows JIT'd code

Hi Sanjoy, On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Robert Lyerly wrote: > > At a high level, I'm interested in finding the locations of all values > > that are live at a given call site.**You can think of it like a > > debugger, e.g. gdb -- I'd like to be able to unwind the stack, frame by >