similar to: FYI: gc relocations on exception path w/RS4GC currently broken

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

Hi David, Sorry to bother you, but I would like to get some suggestions on your recent work of token type. I’m currently working on changing gc.statepoint to return a token type instead of a i32 type. The reason is that with the current implementation, gc.statepoint could potentially be fed into PHI nodes, and break RewriteStatepointsForGC pass later. Using token type would help us to avoid

> 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

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

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

Hi, My collector supports only base pointers as stack roots. This wasn't a problem until I tried to run some optimizations before RS4GC, which introduced (interior) derived pointers. The statepoint documentation mentions that these collectors exist, but doesn't mention whether and how this is currently supported. What could I do to make it work? -Manuel

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

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> ---

Hi all, I would like to propose a mechanism that would allow LLVM to fold null pointer checks into "nearby" memory operations, subject to runtime support. This is related to but not exactly the same as a proposal floated by Peter Collingbourne earlier [1]. The obvious use cases are managed languages like Java, C# and Go that require a null check on pointers before they're used in

Hi Mehdi, On Sep 30, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: On Sep 30, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Anna Thomas via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Hi, I was wondering what’s the community guideline for adding new passes which are solely used for debugging/analysis purposes?

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

I'm have a [PATCH] isDereferenceablePointer: look through gc.relocates and I want to know how to test this patch. So far, I've found one candiate: speculative execution in SimplifyCFG (test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/SpeculativeExec.ll). However, it's somewhat involved to show that SimplifyCFG does kick in for gc.relocate. Is there a better way to directly test it? Signed-off-by:

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

On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> //===-------------------------- >> // The 'landingpad' Instruction >> // >> >> The 'landingpad' instruction replaces the current 'llvm.eh.exception' and >> 'llvm.eh.selector' intrinsics. >> >> // Syntax: >> >> %res = landingpad<somety>

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

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