similar to: PlaceSafepoints, operand bundles, and RewriteStatepointsForGC

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

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

Hi Martin, Philip covered all of it very well, I'll just add one minor comment: > More generally, can I back up and ask an important question? Do you have to > support deoptimization (i.e. osr side exits) in any form? If you do, you'll > probably want to avoid the PlaceSafepoints utility pass. If you need to PlaceSafepoints is inadequate only if you have asynchronous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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 >

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

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, 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

> 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".

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

Hi, I was wondering what’s the community guideline for adding new passes which are solely used for debugging/analysis purposes? Can this be in the upstream llvm, or such passes are more suitable in local downstream repository? In our case, the ‘utility (ease-of-analysis)’ pass is for transformation done by RewriteStatepointsForGC (RS4GC). Note that right now, RS4GC is not enabled in the opt

Is there an explanation anywhere of what code that uses a stack map looks like? I'm interested in writing a garbage collector, but it's not clear to me how my code should make use of the stack map format to actually locate roots in memory. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: