similar to: [GC / Statepoints] Collector supports only base pointers as stack roots

TLDR: a proposal to add GC-parseable lowering to element atomic memcpy/memmove instrinsics controlled by a new "requires-statepoint” call attribute. Currently llvm.{memcpy|memmove}.element.unordered.atomic calls are considered as GC leaf functions (like most other intrinsics). As a result GC cannot occur while copy operation is in progress. This might have negative effect on GC latencies

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

Thanks for the feedback. I think both of the suggestions are very reasonable. I’ll incorporate them. Given there were no objections for two weeks, I’m going to go ahead with posting individual patches for review. One small question inline: On Sep 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com<mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: In general, I am

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

[+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

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

Now that the statepoint changes have landed, I wanted to start a discussion about what's next for GC support in LLVM. I'm going to sketch out a strawman proposal, but I'm not set on any of this. I mostly just want to draw interested parties out of the woodwork. :) Overall Direction: In the short term, my intent is to preserve the functionality of the existing code, but migrate

TLDR. For anyone who is using the RewriteStatepointsForGC utility pass, there is a recent change you should know about which may require you to make some small changes to your stackmap parsing. I have landed a small series of patches which change how we're handling vector of pointers when reporting live pointers for the GC at safepoints. Previously, the RS4GC pass was attempting to

Hello LLVM community, We have been experimenting with using LLVM IR as a target for a managed (dynamically typed) language via an AOT compiler (including a backend for ARM). One main challenge is getting the garbage collection right: We would like to be able to implement a moving collector. This requires us to a) find a precise set of root pointers and b) be able to rewrite those pointers after

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>

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

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

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:

I'm also highly interested in relocating-GC support from LLVM. Up until now my GC implementation has been non-relocating which is obviously kind of a bummer given that it inhibits certain classes of memory allocation/deallocation tricks. I wrote up a bunch of my findings on the implementation of my GC here: https://code.google.com/p/epoch-language/wiki/GarbageCollectionScheme Frankly I

Specifically, I wanted to sit down with Sanjoy and Philip who have been working on getting the current statepoint infrastructure sufficiently well integrated with the optimizer to do early statepoint insertion, and discuss what the path forward is here. If anyone happens to be in the area and is interested in attending, please let me know. Currently, I'm planning to host things up on

Hi, I'm trying to use the statepoint-example strategy to build a simple garbage collector. After using the PlaceSafepoints and RewriteStatepointsForGC passes, I can successfully generate a stack map in my binary and call into my runtime's gc poll. As far as I can tell, I need the stack pointer at the point of the poll to find the correct frame in the stack map. I'm having trouble

Sorry, what does "PC" mean here? ________________________________ From: Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 7:27 AM To: Jordan Rudd; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Passing stack pointer to statepoint-gc Jordon, First of all, StackMaps are keyed by PC, not by SP. Each entry corresponds to given location within the

Hi Chandler, A few of us up here in Seattle would be interested, but we’re too cheap to buy plane tickets. Is it reasonable to set up a conference call? How the optimizer deals with statepoints is important to us. -R From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Chandler Carruth Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 8:21 PM To: Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at

> On Oct 26, 2013, at 12:37 AM, Michael Lewis <don.apoch at gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm also highly interested in relocating-GC support from LLVM. Up until now my GC implementation has been non-relocating which is obviously kind of a bummer given that it inhibits certain classes of memory allocation/deallocation tricks. You can implement a copying GC (what the kids these days