similar to: Support token type in struct for landingpad

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 11:14 PM, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote: > > While we support 'opaque' types nested within struct types, they are not exactly battle tested: > > $ cat t.ll > %opaque_ty = type opaque > > %struct_ty = type { i32, %opaque_ty } > > define %struct_ty @f(%struct_ty* %p) { > %load = load %struct_ty,

> I dont have a concrete design right now and I am happy to take any other ideas Three ideas come to mind, none of which are perfect: 1) I'm tempted to say that now that we have token type, landingpad should generally produce a token, the pointer should be extracted with the @llvm.eh.exceptionpointer intrinsic instead of an extractvalue, and the selector should likewise be extracted with

It seems a little backwards to me to check the landingpad's type as the first check, since the personality dictates the landingpad's type. That said, yes I see how #4 is expedient in allowing personalities using the two main types to lump themselves into EHPersonality::Unknown. As for supporting selector and exception pointer extraction for landingpad of token type, I think you'll

Hello, list I am not quite sure if what I'm experiencing is a bug or intentional behavior. In the code below the result of a function call is a deopt arg to llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint (http://llvm.org/docs/Statepoints.html#llvm-experimental-gc-statepoint-intrinsic). Therefore a Stack Map containing location of this variable is created upon code generation. Here's the complete

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

> Vlad, > > My initial impression is that you've stumbled across a bug. I suspect > that we - the only active users of the deopt info in the statepoint I > know of - have been inverting the meaning of Direct and Indirect > throughout our code. (i.e. we're consistent, but swapped on the > documented meaning) I've asked Sanjoy to confirm that, and if he >

I actually need this feature quite badly in my untyped language compiler: since I support first-class functions, I've made the types of all functions a standard vararg (so I can box them). The implementation crashes when I try to read out the value of gc.result. Hints as to what might be wrong? Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> ---

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

Sorry to reply to myself here, but I had an idea regarding "issue #2" -- possibly what makes the most sense for those clients/targets is to pull the pointer difference computation/reapplication into RS4GC itself -- it could have a pass just before or after rematerialization, which runs based on a configuration flag (eventually to be driven by GCStrategy), which performs rewrites like

Thanks, I think that's a useful way to look at it (though if I wanted to bikeshed I'd suggest the name "DoubleIndirect" as a bit more precise than "VeryIndirect"). An aspect of it that I'm still puzzling over is that my target runtime (at least in its current form) doesn't have a way to represent/process a "VeryIndirect" pointer. So I'd like to

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

Thanks for reviving this. I completely forgot the details but I resolved this problem. Looking though the code, seems I forked RewriteStatepointsForGC pass, and change it to adding 'gc-livevars' bundle to the call/invoke inst after finding the livevars, instead of changing it to StatepointCall intrinsic. On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 11:48 AM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>

For anyone following along on ToT using the gc.statepoint mechanism, you should know that ToT is currently not able to express arbitrary exceptional control flow and relocations along exceptional edges. This is a direct result of moving the gc.statepoint representation to using a token type landingpad. Essentially, we have a design inconsistency where we expect to be able to

Hi, Sanjoy, On 2015-11-16 23:27, Sanjoy Das wrote: > Hi Vlad, > > vlad via llvm-dev wrote: >>> Vlad, >>> >>> My initial impression is that you've stumbled across a bug. I suspect >>> that we - the only active users of the deopt info in the statepoint I >>> know of - have been inverting the meaning of Direct and Indirect >>>

Hi Team, I'm working on a new pure functional language and I'm trying to add GC support for that. Because all vars are immutable, the IR that my frontend generates are all register based, i.e. no alloca, and no readmem, writemem unless accessing/constructing structs. If I use the traditional GC with gcroot intrinsic, it will need to emit more code for liveness tracking, storing the IR

Philip Reames wrote: > Any change outside of statepoint lowering is highly suspect. Notice that SelectionDAGBuilder::LowerCallTo (the one I'm modifying) has exactly one other caller: visitCall, which doesn't match vararg functions. Every other codepath directly calls TargetLowering::LowerCallTo, supplying CallLoweringInfo information explicity (it's a structure with a vararg

Hi, So, we currently have gc.result.int, gc.result.float. gc.result.ptr, gc.relocate, and gc.statepoint. gc.statepoint's signature is fine with a iPTRAny as the first argument. gc.result is in trouble, because none of the signatures admit even a simple array of integers, and there's no aAny. And certainly no vectors. So we can get a gc.result.vector to add to this mess, and admit [1] to

Hi, I'm trying to build a gc using the statepoint-example strategy. However, after hours of searching, reading documentation and trying to find code examples online, I cannot figure out how to access the Stack Map. The documentation for statepoint-example says: The stack map format generated by this GC strategy can be found in the Stack Map

Hi all, I am trying to implement statepoints for the AArch64 target and I’m running into the issue where the following bitcode: define i32 addrspace(1)* @test(i32 addrspace(1)* %ptr) gc "statepoint-example" { entry: call token (i64, i32, i1 ()*, i32, i32, ...) @llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint.p0f_i1f(i64 0, i32 0, i1 ()* @foo, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 addrspace(1)* %ptr) ret

Hi, I am looking to utilize LLVM as the backend in an existing compiler for a garbage collected language, and have a question regarding the current and future support for precise GC in LLVM. It appears that gc.root is being phased out, with with breaking changes such as this: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7004 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D7004> Does this mean that gc.statepoint is ready for