On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Joshua Warner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joshuawarner32@gmail.com">joshuawarner32@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>Hi Talin,<br><br>Sorry to interject - <br> <br></div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>For example, suppose I have a type "String or (float, float, float)" - that is, a union of a string and a 3-tuple of floats. Most of the time what LLVM will see is { i1; { float; float; float; } } because that's bigger than { i1; String* }. LLVM won't even know there's a pointer in there, except during those brief times when I'm accessing the pointer field. So tagging the pointer in a different address space won't help at all here. </div>
<br></div></blockquote></div><div><br>I think this is a fairly uncommon use case that will be tricky to deal with no matter what method is used to track GC roots. That said, why not do something like make the pointer representation (the {i1, String*}) the long-term storage format, and only bitcast *just* before loading the floats? You could even use another address space to indicate that something is *sometimes* a pointer, dependent upon some other value (the i1, perhaps indicated with metadata).<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't know if it's an uncommon use case or not, but it is something that I handle already in my frontend. (I suppose it's uncommon in the sense that almost no one uses the garbage collection features of LLVM, but part of the goal of this discussion is to change that.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>The problem with making { i1, String* } the long-term storage format is that it isn't large enough in the example I gave, so you'll overwrite other fields if you try to store the three floats. The more general issue is that the concepts we're talking about simply aren't expressible in IR as it exists today.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<br>My vote (not that it really counts for much) would be the address-space method. It seems much more elegant.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree that the current solution isn't the best. The problem I have is that the solutions that are being suggested are going to break my code badly, and with no way to fix it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The *real* solution is to make root-ness a function of type. In other words, you can mark any type as being a root, which exposes the base address of all objects of that type to the garbage collector. This is essentially the same as the pointer-address-space suggestion, except that it's not limited to pointers. (In practice, it would only ever apply to pointers and structs.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>(Heck, I'd even be willing to go with a solution where only structs and not pointers could be roots - it means I'd have to wrap every pointer in a struct, which would be a royal pain, but it would at least work.)</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br>The only thing that I think would be unusually difficult for the address-space method to handle would be alternative pointer representations, such as those used in the latest version of Hotspot (see <a href="http://wikis.sun.com/display/HotSpotInternals/CompressedOops" target="_blank">http://wikis.sun.com/display/HotSpotInternals/CompressedOops</a>). Essentially, a 64-bit pointer is packed into 32-bits by assuming 8-byte alignment and restricting the heap size to 32GB. I've seen similar object-reference bitfields used in game engines. In this case, there is no "pointer" to attach the address space to. <br>
<br>(Yes, I know that Hotspot currently uses CompressedOops ONLY in the heap, decompressing them when stored in locals, but it is not inconceivable to avoid decompressing them if the code is just moving them around, as an optimization.)<br>
<br>Just my few thoughts.<br><br>-Joshua<br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>-- Talin<br>