similar to: RFC: alloca -- specify address space for allocation

Philip: I think there are two separate issues: 1) Handling GC pointers stored in stack locations -- tracking their liveness, reporting them to the GC. etc. 2) Treating pointers to stack locations as GC-pointers. I think the two options that you presented here are for solving (1). I'm trying to solve issue (2) using alloca in addrspace(1). Basically, we want to create a pointer to a stack

Please see inline. From: Chandler Carruth [mailto:chandlerc at google.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 7:03 PM To: Swaroop Sridhar <Swaroop.Sridhar at microsoft.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>; Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: alloca -- specify address space for

Inline. From: Philip Reames [mailto:listmail at philipreames.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:01 AM To: Swaroop Sridhar <Swaroop.Sridhar at microsoft.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> Cc: Joseph Tremoulet <jotrem at microsoft.com>; Andy Ayers <andya at microsoft.com>; Russell Hadley <rhadley at

On 08/26/2015 07:02 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:46 PM Swaroop Sridhar via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > Currently, the alloca instruction always allocates in the generic > address space (0). > > This proposal is to extend the semantics of alloca instruction to >

> -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Reames [mailto:listmail at philipreames.com] > Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:38 AM > To: Swaroop Sridhar <Swaroop.Sridhar at microsoft.com>; llvm-dev <llvm- > dev at lists.llvm.org>; Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> > Cc: Joseph Tremoulet <jotrem at microsoft.com>; Andy Ayers > <andya at

Thanks, this makes the use case much more clear. Now though, as far as I would like actually to see supported in LLVM the capability of not having any special meaning assigned to address space 0 your proposal goes slightly in contrast with how I always thought of address spaces in LLVM. I also have to say that I don’t know deeply how address spaces are meant to be intended in LLVM so my vision of

[+CC llvm-dev this time] Hi, As discussed in the review thread in http://reviews.llvm.org/D16439, the future plan around statepoints, deopt bundles, PlaceSafepoints etc. is to "constant fold" -spp-no-statepoints and -rs4gc-use-deopt-bundles to true. We (Azul) have moved to a representation of safepoint polls, deopt state etc. that enables us to do the above; and at this point I'm

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

On 27 Aug 2015, at 07:40, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:25 PM Matt Arsenault <Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com> wrote: > On 08/26/2015 07:02 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> Without a better understanding of both the motivation and the resulting consequences such as what I've outlined

As part of adding `"deopt"` operand bundles, we're aiming to change RewriteStatepointsForGC (called RS4GC henceforth) from rewriting existing `gc.statepoint` calls to transforming normal LLVM calls and invokes into `gc.statepoint` calls and invokes (i.e. to do PlaceSafepoints + RS4GC in one step). This will make `gc.statepoint` an artifact of the gc lowering strategy that only

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

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com> > To: "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> > Cc: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Joseph Tremoulet" > <jotrem at microsoft.com>, "Oscar Blumberg"

Given a pointer, does any addrspacecast affect the pointer's dereferenceablity ? For example, %pm = addrspaacecast float addrspacecast(n)* %pn to float addrspacecast(m)* %r = load float addrspace(m)* %pm In another word. the question is whether the following is true ? isDereferenceablePointer(pn) == isDereferenceablePointer(pm) [Note that the function is defined as

> 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

Hi Mehdi, Thanks for the reply - I’ve finally got round to trying to fix this based on your suggestion. I’ve got something that mostly works, but I just wanted to double-check something about the regression tests before I post a patch. > The memcpy is supposed to be equivalent to a sequence of load and store. Here we are just failing to keep the property that the load is performed through

OK, I’ve hit one more existing regression test that I’m weary of: define void @test2_addrspacecast() { %A = alloca %T %B = alloca %T %a = addrspacecast %T* %A to i8 addrspace(1)* %b = addrspacecast %T* %B to i8 addrspace(1)* call void @llvm.memcpy.p1i8.p0i8.i64(i8 addrspace(1)* %a, i8* bitcast (%T* @G to i8*), i64 124, i32 4, i1 false) call void

This is a follow-up discussion on http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140324/101899.html. The front-end change was already pushed in r204677, so we want to continue with the IR optimization. In general, we want to write an IR pass to convert generic address space usage to non-generic address space usage, because accessing the generic address space in CUDA and OpenCL is

Hi, I’ve recently encountered an issue where the `instcombine` pass replaces an `llvm.memcpy` between two distinct address spaces with an `addrspacecast` instruction. As an example, see the trivial OpenCL kernel attached. I’m compiling like this: clang -cc1 -triple spir64-unknown-unknown -x cl -O0 -emit-llvm array_init.cl -o before.ll This yields an `llvm.memcpy` to copy the array

On 16 Mar 2015, at 08:25, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > The LangRef says this about addrspacecast: "Note that if the address > space conversion is legal then both result and operand refer to the > same memory location.". This brings forth two related questions: > > 1. what happens if you execute an "invalid" addrspacecast?

In the following example, for some reasons, the input pointer entering the loop was casted to generic pointer. How can the backend get rid of the addrspacecast and use local store in the loop? for.body.lr.ph: ; preds = %entry %0 = addrspacecast i32 addrspace(3)* %in to i32 addrspace(4)* br label %for.body for.body: ; preds = %for.body, %for.body.lr.ph %i.03 = phi i32 [ 0, %for.body.lr.ph ],