similar to: [LLVMdev] why is gc.root 8 bits?

Couple of questions: 1. void llvm_gc_write(void *V, void *ObjPtr, void **FieldPtr) I haven't seen an adequate explanation of these, but I'm guessing: void *V: value being written to the field void *ObjPtr: current value of the field (ie. ObjPtr == *FieldPtr upon entry to llvm_gc_write) void **FieldPtr: address of the field being written 2. The current semispace collector includes

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Sandro Magi wrote: > Couple of questions: Ok, it's been a long while since I've worked on the GC stuff, but I'll try to help :) > 1. void llvm_gc_write(void *V, void *ObjPtr, void **FieldPtr) > > I haven't seen an adequate explanation of these, but I'm guessing: > void *V: value being written to the field > void *ObjPtr: current value

I'm allocating { i8*, i32 } on the stack, and would like to add this as a GC root, but I'm having trouble figuring this out. This works as expected: declare void @llvm.gcroot(i8** %ptrloc, i8* %metadata) define i8* @bar(i8* %x) gc "shadow-stack" { entry: %objptr = alloca i8* call void @llvm.gcroot(i8** %objptr, i8* null) store i8* %x, i8** %objptr %v = load i8*, i8**

We have a few questions about the current state of GC. We decided to start (and finish?) our work by finishing SemiSpace. process_pointer is meant to move objects from CurSpace to OtherSpace. How can it find pointers to a moved object? How does it know the size of each object? Assuming we are writing a GC that will only work from llvm assembly our best option seems to be forcing the assembly code

Solved by using alloca i8*, i32 2 which the system seems happy enough with, and bitcasting to the actual type for rest of the code after llvm.gcroot. Not entirely sure if this is a terrible workaround or exactly the way gcroot is supposed to be used... On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Nikodemus Siivola < nikodemus at random-state.net> wrote: > I'm allocating { i8*, i32 } on the

Hi, Talin wrote: > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to llvm.gcroot, > which says it must be a pointer alloca. I'm not sure whether that means it > must be an alloca (which is always a pointer by definition) or an alloca > *of* a pointer. I'm pretty sure it should be "alloca of a pointer", as the first argument of llvm.gcroot has type i8**.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Tom Brown wrote: > We have a few questions about the current state of GC. Ok. :) > We decided to start (and finish?) our work by finishing SemiSpace. Sounds good. > process_pointer is meant to move objects from CurSpace to OtherSpace. > How can it find pointers to a moved object? This is entirely up to you, as you're basically implementing the semispace

On 04/27/10 00:20, Talin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis > <llvm at assumetheposition.nl <mailto:llvm at assumetheposition.nl>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Talin wrote: > > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to > llvm.gcroot, > > which says it must be a pointer alloca. I'm not sure whether

This is also happening when using the C++ APIs. It looks like an MCJIT and SetGC interaction. I'm lost on how to proceed further. On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: > The erlang was a typo, I was trying things out. > > I've updated the bug with a C program, which exhibits the problem. > > To answer your question,

On 2008-01-07, at 05:29, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Monday 07 January 2008 02:32:47 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> Everything described in GarbageCollection.html should now be live. >> Phew! >> > > This is wonderful news! Are there any example programs using these > GCs? The division of labor is such that the user program must provide the stack walker (in

On Apr 20, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On 2008-04-20, at 21:05, Terence Parr wrote: > >> On Apr 20, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: >> >>> Since the semispace heap doesn't actually work (it's an example, >>> at best), I suggest you simply copy the stack visitor into your >>> project; it's only a dozen lines of

>> maybe current infrastructure used for eh/debug info emission can be >> extended to handle ocaml data? > > Perhaps. I'm pretty sure the code to generate this stuff doesn't belong in > LLVM proper like DWARF support does, though; this is not even a vague > approximation of a standard. :) >From your original email: >The biggest problem is a data

Hi Chris, Chris Lattner wrote: > I don't think you want to try to have the LLVM code generator build this > table. The table is a contract between the specific codegen you're using > and the GC runtime you're using. This contract is specific to the current > ocaml code generator. > > In the LLVM world, you should use the first-class support we already have

Thanks for the quick reply, Anton. On 2007-08-12, at 16:43, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, Gordon. > > Just a quick thinko (that's why I'm sending this e-mail personally): No problem. I hope you don't mind me redirecting back to the list, though… > maybe current infrastructure used for eh/debug info emission can be > extended to handle ocaml data? Perhaps.

Ok, that makes sense :). , Tobias On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Tobias Nurmiranta wrote: > > > void *llvm_gc_read(void *ObjPtr, void **FieldPtr) { > > > return *FieldPtr; > > > } > > > > Hm, but doesn't FieldPtr need to be calculated target-specific in those > > cases? > > For the field pointer, one

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl>wrote: > Hi, > > Talin wrote: > > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to llvm.gcroot, > > which says it must be a pointer alloca. I'm not sure whether that means > it > > must be an alloca (which is always a pointer by definition) or an alloca > > *of* a

Gordon Henriksen wrote: > > The "runtime interface" is a historical artifact. LLVM does not impose > a runtime library on its users. I wouldn't have a problem deleting all > mention of it, since LLVM does not impose a contract on the runtime. > Excellent, I found it somewhat unhelpful! >> The semantics of llvm.gcroot are vague: >> "At

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl>wrote: > On 04/27/10 00:20, Talin wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis <llvm at assumetheposition.nl>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Talin wrote: >> > I'm a little confused as to the rules for the arguments to llvm.gcroot, >> > which says it must be

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Tobias Nurmiranta wrote: > > void *llvm_gc_read(void *ObjPtr, void **FieldPtr) { > > return *FieldPtr; > > } > > Hm, but doesn't FieldPtr need to be calculated target-specific in those > cases? For the field pointer, one could use the getelementptr instruction: %pairty = { sbyte, sbyte, int* } %pairPtr = ... %fieldptr = getelementptr

On 04/29/10 21:27, Talin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Paul Melis > <llvm at assumetheposition.nl <mailto:llvm at assumetheposition.nl>> wrote: > > On 04/27/10 00:20, Talin wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Paul Melis >> <llvm at assumetheposition.nl <mailto:llvm at assumetheposition.nl>> wrote: >> >>