similar to: GC-parseable element atomic memcpy/memmove

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

[+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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I've mentioned on the mailing list a couple of times over the last few months, we've been working on an approach for supporting precise fully relocating garbage collection in LLVM. I am happy to announce that we now have a version of the code available for public view and discussion. https://github.com/AzulSystems/llvm-late-safepoint-placement

Is anyone aware of an existing framework for asking liveness questions about SSA values in the IR? I'm looking for something more precise than the trivial definition provided by SSA itself. I can write something myself (and will if need be), but it seemed like a generic enough problem that I was surprised I couldn't find something already in tree. Anyone know of something I've

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, 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 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

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

> On Oct 13, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > >> On 10/13/2014 03:23 PM, Kevin Modzelewski wrote: >> With the patchpoint infrastructure, shouldn't it now be relatively straightforward to do an accurate-but-non-relocatable scan of the stack, by attaching all the GC roots as stackmap arguments to patchpoints? This is

> 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 >

Thanks for the comments and for taking a look. On 06/05/2014 02:19 AM, David Chisnall wrote: > Hi Philip, > > The first thing that I notice on looking at the code is the lack of comments. For example, about the only comment that I see in include /llvm/IR/Statepoint.h is a note telling me that a class is only intended to be used on the stack. Doxygen comments and, for a feature like

This is a proposal to add strong GC reference types to LLVM. We have some local (downstream) patches that are needed to prevent LLVM's optimizer from making transforms that are problematic in the presence of a precise relocating GC. Adding a notion of a strong GC reference to LLVM will let us upstream these patches in a principled manner, and will act as a measure to avoid new problematic