similar to: [RFC] Replacing inalloca with llvm.call.setup and preallocated

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:31 PM Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> wrote: > I assume by “drop support”, you mean reject it in the bitcode reader/IR > parser? We can’t reasonably support a complex feature like inalloca if > nobody is testing it. If we can’t reasonably upgrade it, and we don’t think > there are any users other than clang targeting 32-bit Windows, probably

Sorry for the delay. Arthur Eubanks has started working on the design here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74651 I felt I should follow up here about that. On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 6:47 PM Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> wrote: > It doesn’t seem like multiple call sites should be a problem if they’re > sufficiently similar? If the argument layout for each callsite is the > same,

Bringing this back up for discussion on handling exceptions. According to the inalloca design <https://llvm.org/docs/InAlloca.html>, there should be a stackrestore after an invoke in both the non-exceptional and exceptional case (that doesn't seem to be happening in some cases as we've seen, but that's beside the point). Does it make sense to model a preallocated call as

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 2:20 PM Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> wrote: > This would specifically be for cases where we try to rewrite the > signature? I would assume we should forbid rewriting the signature of a > call with an operand bundle. And once some optimization drops the bundle > and preallocated marking, to allow such rewriting, the signature doesn’t > need

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > If we're keeping types on GEP, > You mean rather than just dropping gep entirely & doing manual pointer arithmetic? (& moving inbounds to an attribute on pointer addition, I guess?) > then IMO we should keep them on allocas and globals. It keeps the IR human > readable. > & what of

I wanted to mention that I'm planning to start writing and sending out patches for this. Naming the attribute 'alloca' was really confusing, so I'd like to change it to 'inalloca', which follows the preposition pattern of inreg and byval. After discussion, we decided it was silly to add stackbase uses to alloca instructions. They should stay simple. Instead, we'll

> Do all tests need it? Align is just for non-default alignment (> align(1)) so it may be OK for the tests to omit it & it's probably not right to /require/ an align attribute on a byval parameter. I've had to fix some of the tests which checked that the right alignment was applied, by looking at the generated asm, but had no "align A" attributes and relied on the

>> So at a high level I think we should put the serialization and Instruction >> changes in sooner rather than later, giving us a largely undocumented[2] dialect >> of IR with opaque pointers that we can write tests against to upstream the rest >> of what I've done (and others can use to continue work in parallel if they're >> inclined). > > My,

Hello-- Why do I target chan_sip for so much effort? Because, it seems to me, chan_sip is probably the most used channel driver in the asterisk community!! (and, of course, the zap/dahdi driver, is also pretty popular) I haven't had time to follow up on chan_sip, and I probably won't for several months. But, if I had time, here is what I'd do: There are two ways to speed up

Hi all, At the dev meeting I promised to update everyone on where my work with opaque pointers is right now. It's taken me a while, but at least it's the same year! Current Status ============== I've put two branches up at https://github.com/TNorthover/llvm-project: "opaque-ptr" which has most of the real work so far; and "opaque-ptr-always" that additionally has

Some frontends for LLVM require that LLVM perform tail call optimization (TCO) for correctness. Internally, LLVM refers to TCO of a non-recursive tail call as sibling call optimization, but I'm going to refer to that generically as TCO. Often, functional languages like Scheme have a language-level requirement that TCO occurs for any call in the tail position, and this is usually why users of

Hi, In the past months, several options have been presented for making byval (and similar attributes, such as inalloca or sret) work with opaque pointers. The main two I've seen were byval(T) and byval(N) where N is the size of T. They both have their upsides and downsides, for example: byval(T) would be a type-parametric attribute, which, AFAIK, does not already exist and may complicate

Moving this to llvm-dev where I should've sent it in the first place (& +Chandler, because we discussed this offline a bit) On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:57 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Rafael Espíndola <

While trying to use direct_media I'm seeing RTP payload mismatches after succesful reinvites. Initial INVITE from endpoint A to asterisk has rfc4733 DMTF m=audio 35648 RTP/AVP 9 8 111 96 a=rtpmap:96 telephone-event/8000 a=fmtp:96 0-16 >From asterisk to upstream U: m=audio 14338 RTP/AVP 9 8 111 18 0 101 a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000 a=fmtp:101 0-16 So the payload types in the RTP

Currently, the alloca instruction always allocates in the generic address space (0). This proposal is to extend the semantics of alloca instruction to allow allocation in any specified address space. Proposed Syntax <result> = alloca [inalloca] <type> [, <ty> <NumElements>] [, align <alignment>] [, addrspace <num>] ; yields type addrspace(num)*:result

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 2:41 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 10:36:06PM +0000, Nir Soffer wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 5:25 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > > > PROBLEMS: > > > - -of qcow2 does not work, with multiple problems > > > * needs to set NBD size to

[CC to qemu-devel since I'm obviously doing something wrong here, I'm just not sure what.] I was getting ready to add multiple threads to ‘qemu-img convert’ (the longest part of v2v conversions) when I noticed that it had them already! (To be fair this was only added in February this year so no wonder we didn't notice.) To enable parallel convert we would need to use the ‘qemu-img

Hi All, When I tried to create preallocated image with gluster , I am unable to create one The image gets created but not preallocated. [root@ ]# qemu-img create -f qcow2 -o preallocation=full gluster://host1.lab.eng.blr.redhat.com/rep3vol/vm3.img 3G Formatting 'gluster://dhcp37-61.lab.eng.blr.redhat.com/rep3vol/newvm3.img', fmt=qcow2 size=3221225472 encryption=off cluster_size=65536

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Ehsan Amiri <ehsanamiri at gmail.com> wrote: > David, > > Could you give us an update on the status of typeless pointer work? How > much work is left and when you think it might be ready? > It's a bit of an onion peel, really - since it will eventually involve generalizing/fixing every optimization that's currently leaning on typed

Back to the discussion on the RFC, I still see some advantage in following the proposed solution. I see two paths forward: 1- Change canonical form, possibly lower memcpy to non-integer load and store in InstCombine. Then teach the backends to convert that to integer load and store if that is more profitable. Notice that we are talking about loads that have no use other than store. So it is a