similar to: [LLVMdev] Large constants in patchpoints

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 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:

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 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

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

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

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

Hello, I'm currently looking into integrating the patchpoint and stackmap intrinsics into my pet project. In their current implementation (3.4 and trunk) the code to emit the additional section is only executed on Darwin. This is however quickly fixed: Add a ".llvm_stackmaps"-Section for ELF in MCObjectFileInfo and execute StackMaps::serializeToStackMapSection in X86AsmPrinter in

I've been looking at inlining invokes / calls done through statepoints and I want to have a design discussion before I sink too much time into something I'll have to throw away. I'm not actively working on adding inlining support to patchpoints, but I suspect these issues are applicable towards teaching LLVM to inline through patchpoints as well. There are two distinct problems to

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

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 23, 2013, at 7:26 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > On 10/23/13 5:38 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >> >> On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >> >>>> The implementation of the two intrinsics is actually very similar. In this case, the difference would be that llvm.stackmap does not

On 10/22/13 10:48 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > I'll respond to a few questions below. I'll start a new thread for GC > discussion. Good idea. Thanks. > > On Oct 22, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com > <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > >>> Now with regard to patching. I think llvm.patchpoint is generally

I'll respond to a few questions below. I'll start a new thread for GC discussion. On Oct 22, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >> Now with regard to patching. I think llvm.patchpoint is generally useful for any type of patching I can imagine. It does look like a call site in IR, and it’s nice to be able to leverage calling conventions to inform

On 10/23/13 10:03 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Oct 23, 2013, at 7:26 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com > <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > >> On 10/23/13 5:38 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Philip Reames >>> <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at

> On Jul 9, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Swaroop Sridhar <Swaroop.Sridhar at microsoft.com> wrote: > > Regarding Call-site size specification: > > CoreCLR (https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr <https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr>) requires the size of the Call-instruction to be reported in the GCInfo encoding. > > The runtime performs querries for StackMap records using

On 10/23/13 5:38 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com > <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > >>> The implementation of the two intrinsics is actually very similar. >>> In this case, the difference would be that llvm.stackmap does not >>> reserve space for patching, while