similar to: [LLVMdev] RFC: liveoncall parameter attribute

> On Oct 31, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Hi Kevin, > > Thank you for starting this discussion! Yes, sorry for being unresponsive for a few days. Sanjoy summarized the issues perfectly. > I think the distinction is really between whether the live values are > "live on call" or "live on return".

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

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

The long term plan is a) evolving, and b) dependent on the specific use case. :) It would definitely be nice if we could support both early and late safepoint insertion. I see no reason that LLVM as a project should pick one or the other since the infrastructure required is largely overlapping. (Obviously, I'm going to be mostly working on the parts that I need, but others are always

Reid Kleckner wrote: > I'm assuming this attribute won't affect inlining or other IPO in any > way, but you should probably mention that in the langref. To directly answer this, this is just a *mechanism* to implement linkonce_odr type linkage. This in itself does not imply in IPO restrictions, that should come directly from the linkage type. -- Sanjoy

Hi @ll, over the past year we gained more experience with the patchpoint/stackmap/statepoint intrinsics and it exposed limitations in the stackmap format. The following proposal includes feedback and request from several interested parties and I would like to hear your feedback. Missing correlation between functions and stackmap records: Originally the client had to keep track of the ID to know

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

> 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

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 Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:26 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: >> But I believe the language does allow "undefined behavior" if there's >> a use of pT when the pointed-to object isn't actually of type T.  It's >> an invalid use in that case, right? > > Yes, but not for an

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

Hi All, I am observing something i suspect is a misbehaviour of the register allocator which impacts the performance of patchpoints. This occurs in the context of an abstract machine which in some places uses inline caches. The problematic code looks like this: entry: ; Initialize the abstract machine %db = call create_big_seldom_used_database() ; do a lot of things which increases register

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

I'd like to generate an indirect call instruction that will end up as a call via memory and not register. The address of the target is a constant. For example, something like %25 = load i64, i64* @get_Now %26 = inttoptr i64 %25 to i64 ()* %27 = call i64 %26() may end up as mov rsi,qword ptr [00007FF658381070] call rsi or as call qword ptr [00007FF658381070] If I want to

Hi Stepan, After discovering several bugs in ArgumentPromotion and DeadArgumentElimination where llvm::Functions were replaced with similar functions (with the same name) to transform their type in some way, I started looking at all calls to llvm::Function::takeName to see if there were any other debug info quality bugs in similar callers. One such caller is MergeFunctions, and I don't see

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: >> Part of the challenge here is to specify the attribute in a way that >> allows inlining, but not IPA without inlining. In fact, maybe it is >> best to not call it "interposable" at all? > > > Yea, this is something *very* different from interposable. GCC and other >

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

> 3.  can I modify a function to take extra formal parameters? can I update > all calls of the original function to take extra actual paramters?  The > function might be called across multiple modules.   It seems this has to be > done at both ModulePass and FunctionPass levels. > Check out DeadArgumentElimination pass. It does opposite of what you want, but you'll get an idea.

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

Hi Gael, I tried converting to your approach but I had some issues making sure that all symbols accessed by the jit modules have entries in the dynamic symbol table. To be specific, my current approach is to use MCJIT (using an objectcache) to JIT the runtime module and then let MCJIT handle linking any references from the jit'd modules; I just experimented with what I think you're doing,