Re: LLVM 16 (opaque pointers)
Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
From: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Devrim Gündüz <devrim@gunduz.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, Ronan Dunklau <ronan.dunklau@aiven.io>
Date: 2023-10-13T09:06:21Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
jit: Adjust back-patch of f90b4a84 to 12 and 13.
- 9ad98627614b 12.17 landed
- 7c070e224c4a 13.13 landed
-
Log LLVM library version in configure output.
- 0a6e2c7f8694 11.22 landed
- 527e62a5e5d7 12.17 landed
- a13b63c788a3 13.13 landed
- 03e749c2b89e 14.10 landed
- 0e49e23782c5 15.5 landed
- 3b0f20f6ce14 16.1 landed
- 5e4dacb9878c 17.0 landed
-
jit: Changes for LLVM 17.
- 7da915e33abf 12.17 landed
- 53c4dabe18d3 13.13 landed
- 0a8b7d5c1126 14.10 landed
- b60e3ac7603d 15.5 landed
- 774185056834 16.1 landed
- 76200e5ee469 17.0 landed
-
jit: Supply LLVMGlobalGetValueType() for LLVM < 8.
- 60596f148a66 16.1 landed
- d701f0d1f3e7 12.17 landed
- 981292c19f38 13.13 landed
- ee3e4c41f354 14.10 landed
- b2e097788663 15.5 landed
- f90b4a846b32 17.0 landed
-
jit: Support opaque pointers in LLVM 16.
- 15ddc9725eb7 12.17 landed
- f28956b239f1 13.13 landed
- 82d9a782a296 14.10 landed
- eed1feb3fee1 15.5 landed
- 74d19ec096df 16.1 landed
- 37d5babb5cfa 17.0 landed
-
jit: Reference function pointer types via llvmjit_types.c.
- df99ddc70b97 14.0 cited
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 04:31:20PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-10-11 21:59:50 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > +#else
> > + LLVMPassBuilderOptionsRef options;
> > + LLVMErrorRef err;
> > + int compile_optlevel;
> > + char *passes;
> > +
> > + if (context->base.flags & PGJIT_OPT3)
> > + compile_optlevel = 3;
> > + else
> > + compile_optlevel = 0;
> > +
> > + passes = psprintf("default<O%d>,mem2reg,function(no-op-function),no-op-module",
> > + compile_optlevel);
>
> I don't think the "function(no-op-function),no-op-module" bit does something
> particularly useful?
Right, looks like leftovers after verifying which passes were actually
applied. My bad, could be removed.
> I also don't think we should add the mem2reg pass outside of -O0 - running it
> after a real optimization pipeline doesn't seem useful and might even make the
> code worse? mem2reg is included in default<O1> (and obviously also in O3).
My understanding was that while mem2reg is included everywhere above
-O0, this set of passes won't hurt. But yeah, if you say it could
degrade the final result, it's better to not do this. I'll update this
part.