Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:21:50 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org> Cc: Matthew Fleming <mdf@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@FreeBSD.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>, "svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r253802 - head/contrib/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Headers Message-ID: <201308140821.50565.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <2A4F32C7-939D-4C4D-A136-D99FC06C486E@FreeBSD.org> References: <201307301233.r6UCXLT8012177@svn.freebsd.org> <20130813205736.GA68244@stack.nl> <2A4F32C7-939D-4C4D-A136-D99FC06C486E@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 4:23:11 am David Chisnall wrote: > On 13 Aug 2013, at 21:57, Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> wrote: > > > Given that JIT is for performance and larger addresses increase code > > size and register pressure, the mmap() flag is probably useful. > > Alternatively, all the JITted code could be placed in one block and use > > relative addressing. > > This would be a good thing to have in for 10.0, as the LLVM 3.4 JIT will > require it unless someone wants to contribute support for the large code > model... So you just need a flag to cap the virtual address at 2GB? Do you think we need an arbitrary address flag for this, or is a hardcoded 2GB flag ok? Linux has a MAP_32BIT that does what you want I think. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201308140821.50565.jhb>