[LLVMdev] Being able to know the jitted code-size before emitting

[Nicolas Geoffray]

Thx again Evan for the review. Here's a new patch for the JIT in itself. 
The major changes are:
1) A JITMemoryManager now has a flag saying "I require to know the size 
of what you want to emit"
2) DwarfJITEmitter is augmented with GetSize* functions
3) JITEmitter::startFunction checks if the JITMemoryManager requires to 
know the size. If so, it computes it and gives it through the ActualPtr 
argument.

I suppose it's OK to commit, but if anyone wants to complain, I'm 
listening :)

Thanks,
Nicolas


Evan Cheng wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2008, at 1:46 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote:
>
>   
>>> How about a  default GetInstSize() as well? Return 1 for every
>>> instruction except for some special TargetInstrInfo instructions,  
>>> e.g.
>>> PHI, IMPLICIT_DEF, LABEL. I don't know if it's useful or not. But
>>> perhaps we can default most targets to it?
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> I prefer not giving a default implementation and aborting with a  
>> message
>> that says the target did not implement it. This way we know why it's  
>> not
>> working. Is it OK?
>>     
>
> That's ok.
>
>   
>>     
>>>> //
>>>> -unsigned X86RegisterInfo::getX86RegNum(unsigned RegNo) const {
>>>> +unsigned X86RegisterInfo::getX86RegNum(unsigned RegNo) {
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> What happened to "const"?
>>>
>>>       
>> I made the function static.
>>     
>
> Ok.
>
>   
>>     
>>>> +  unsigned Size = GetInstSizeWithDesc(*MI, &Desc, IsPIC,
>>>> Is64BitMode);
>>>> +  if (Desc.getOpcode() == X86::MOVPC32r) {
>>>> +      Size += GetInstSizeWithDesc(*MI, &get(X86::POP32r), IsPIC,
>>>> Is64BitMode);
>>>> +  }
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I would prefer this special case is handled in GetInstSizeWithDesc().
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> I can not do that in GetInstSizeWithDesc because the test is on the
>> MachineInstruction, which will always say that Desc.getOpcode ==  
>> MOVPC32
>> in GetInstSizeWithDesc (hence the function will endlessly call  
>> itself).
>> X86CodeEmitter is doing the same.
>>     
>
> Ok.
>
>   
>>     
>>> Looks great! Thanks.
>>>
>>>       
>> Thx to you for reviewing the patch! I'll modify it with your  
>> suggestions
>> and wait for your response to this email before committing it.
>>
>>     
>
> Thanks,
>
> Evan
>
>   
>> Nicolas
>>
>>     
>>> Evan
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>   

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jit-size.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 22557 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080417/e2106922/attachment.bin>