similar to: blackbox win32

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > >> I think the idea is to model the intrinsic as a normal external function >> call: >> > - Can read/write escaped memory >> > - Escapes pointer args >> - Functionattrs cannot infer

One thing that volatile doesn't do is escape results that have been written to memory. The proposed blackbox intrinsic is modeled as reading and writing any pointed to memory, which is useful. I also think blackbox will be a lot easier for people to use than empty volatile inline asm and volatile loads and stores. That alone seems worth something. :) On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Daniel

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:13:43 -0800, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: <snip for gmane> > Heck, i could even reason about inline asm if i wanted to ;-). > > My point is that this call is super special compared to all other > calls, > and literally everything in LLVM has to understand that. > The liklihood of subtle bugs being introduced in functionality (IE >

I think the idea is to model the intrinsic as a normal external function call: - Can read/write escaped memory - Escapes pointer args - Functionattrs cannot infer anything about it - Returns a pointer which may alias any escaped data It's obvious how this works at the IR level, but I'm not sure what would happen in the backend. If you compile the intrinsic to nothing but a virtual

Hi Richard, You don't appear to have addressed my suggestion to not require a perfect external world, instead to measure the overhead of an imperfect world (by using an empty benchmark) and subtracting that from the measured benchmark score. Besides which, absolute benchmark results are more than often totally useless - the really important part of benchmarking is relative differences.

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Why does this need to be an intrinsic (as opposed to generic "unknown > function" to llvm)? > > Secondly, have you looked into a volatile store / load to an alloca? That > should work with PNaCl and WebAssembly. > > E.g. > > define i32 @blackbox(i32 %arg) { >

The common use case I've seen for a black box like construct is when writing microbenchmarks. In particular, you're generally looking for a way to "sink" the result of a computation without having that sink outweigh the cost of the thing you're trying to measure. Common alternate approaches are to use a volatile store (so that it can't be eliminated or sunk out of

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Dmitri Gribenko via llvm-dev > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:03 AM, James Molloy via

Hey all, I'd like to propose a new intrinsic for use in preventing optimizations from deleting IR due to constant propagation, dead code elimination, etc. # Background/Motivation In Rust we have a crate called `test` which provides a function, `black_box`, which is designed to be a no-op function that prevents constprop, die, etc from interfering with tests/benchmarks but otherwise

Has anybody had experience with installing Supervoice (2.6) fax/voice software in wine? I've installed it apparently OK (although I do seem to remember getting some error on installation) - it seems to start to run OK, but with some glitches! Each time, it wants to re-detect and configure the modem - why?! Also, it shows me the messages (fax and voice) which were stored in the modem (USR 56K

I am porting SWX (swxformat.org) to Ruby. It''s a data exchange format that assembles data structures into native SWF bytecode. Here''s my dilemma: The original SWX implementation (PHP) tests a lot of methods that wouldn''t be included in the public API (if PHP properly supported encapsulation that is). The PHP implementation really only includes a single public

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > I don't see how this is any different from volatile markers on > loads/stores or memory barriers or several other optimizer blocking > devices. They generally end up crippling the optimizers without much added > benefit. > Volatile must touch memory (right?). Memory is slow. > Would it

Hello I try today to install samba 4.13.1 ? ./configure run without error Make run without error Make Check Failed Debian 10.6 Also all required Packages are installed -- # cat summary = Failed tests = == samba4.blackbox.demote-saveddb == command: PYTHON=python3 /usr/src/samba-4.13.1/testprogs/blackbox/demote-saveddb.sh $PREFIX_ABS/demote

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Dmitri Gribenko via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:03 AM, James Molloy via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > You don't appear to have addressed my suggestion to not require a perfect > > external world, instead to measure the overhead of an imperfect world (by > >

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 09:27:32 -0800, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: <snip> > > Great! > > You should then test that this happens, and additionally write a test > that can't be optimized away, since the above is apparently not a useful > microbenchmark for anything but the compiler ;-) > > Seriously though, there are basically three cases (with a bit of >

I'm trying to use a shareware program called PowerISO to extract a .daa cd image to a raw iso9660 format so that I can view the contents. PowerISO runs like this: ________________ [nate@blackbox ~/.wine/drive_c/Program Files/PowerISO]$ sudo wine cdburn.exe Password: Usage: cdburn <drive> -erase [image [options]] cdburn <drive> image [options] Options:

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 07:14:28PM -0800, Sean Silva via llvm-dev wrote: > Can you show a real benchmark that users have tried to write where the call > overhead of actually using an external function call is measurable? This is the wrong question. The correct question is: What useful benchmark cannot trivally factor out the overhead of the external function call. Yes, if you do

In the hope for some help, I would like some hint on how to diagnose the following single subunit: samba3.blackbox.smbclient_machine_auth.plain In particular the single test samba3.blackbox.smbclient_machine_auth.plain (s4member:local)(s4member:local) Results attached, run is from git at 'origin/v4-10-stable' Thanks in advance (This is because in my full selftest almost all failures

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 because of strange reasons my notebook sometimes crashes short after startup (but that's not ext3's fault, maybe mem?, when i wait several minutes it works without problems) the problem is that after 3 crashes at startup, when my notebook finally worked i got the msg: Sep 23 23:29:17 blackbox kernel: EXT3-fs warning (device ide0(3,3)):

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > I'm very unclear and why you think a generic black box intrinsic will have > any different performance impact ;-) > > > I'm also unclear on what the goal with this intrinsic is. > I understand the symptoms you are trying to solve - what exactly is the > disease. > > IE you say