This section describes the garbage collection facilities provided by the
:doc:`LLVM intermediate representation <LangRef>`. The exact behavior of these
-IR features is specified by the binary interface implemented by a :ref:`code
-generation plugin <plugin>`, not by this document.
-
-These facilities are limited to those strictly necessary; they are not intended
-to be a complete interface to any garbage collector. A program will need to
-interface with the GC library using the facilities provided by that program.
+IR features is specified by the selected :ref:`GC strategy description
+<plugin>`.
Specifying GC code generation: ``gc "..."``
-------------------------------------------
.. code-block:: llvm
- define ty @name(...) gc "name" { ...
+ define <returntype> @name(...) gc "name" { ... }
-The ``gc`` function attribute is used to specify the desired GC style to the
+The ``gc`` function attribute is used to specify the desired GC strategy to the
compiler. Its programmatic equivalent is the ``setGC`` method of ``Function``.
-Setting ``gc "name"`` on a function triggers a search for a matching code
-generation plugin "*name*"; it is that plugin which defines the exact nature of
-the code generated to support GC. If none is found, the compiler will raise an
-error.
+Setting ``gc "name"`` on a function triggers a search for a matching subclass
+of GCStrategy. Some collector strategies are built in. You can add others
+using either the loadable plugin mechanism, or by patching your copy of LLVM.
+It is the selected GC strategy which defines the exact nature of the code
+generated to support GC. If none is found, the compiler will raise an error.
Specifying the GC style on a per-function basis allows LLVM to link together
programs that use different garbage collection algorithms (or none at all).
%derived = getelementptr %object, i32 0, i32 2, i32 %n
LLVM does not enforce this relationship between the object and derived pointer
-(although a :ref:`plugin <plugin>` might). However, it would be an unusual
-collector that violated it.
+(although a particular :ref:`collector strategy <plugin>` might). However, it
+would be an unusual collector that violated it.
+
+The use of these intrinsics is naturally optional if the target GC does not
+require the corresponding barrier. The GC strategy used with such a collector
+should replace the intrinsic calls with the corresponding ``load`` or
+``store`` instruction if they are used.
-The use of these intrinsics is naturally optional if the target GC does require
-the corresponding barrier. Such a GC plugin will replace the intrinsic calls
-with the corresponding ``load`` or ``store`` instruction if they are used.
+One known deficiency with the current design is that the barrier intrinsics do
+not include the size or alignment of the underlying operation performed. It is
+currently assumed that the operation is of pointer size and the alignment is
+assumed to be the target machine's default alignment.
Write barrier: ``llvm.gcwrite``
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For write barriers, LLVM provides the ``llvm.gcwrite`` intrinsic function. It
has exactly the same semantics as a non-volatile ``store`` to the derived
-pointer (the third argument). The exact code generated is specified by a
-compiler :ref:`plugin <plugin>`.
+pointer (the third argument). The exact code generated is specified by the
+Function's selected :ref:`GC strategy <plugin>`.
Many important algorithms require write barriers, including generational and
concurrent collectors. Additionally, write barriers could be used to implement
For read barriers, LLVM provides the ``llvm.gcread`` intrinsic function. It has
exactly the same semantics as a non-volatile ``load`` from the derived pointer
-(the second argument). The exact code generated is specified by a
-:ref:`compiler plugin <plugin>`.
+(the second argument). The exact code generated is specified by the Function's
+selected :ref:`GC strategy <plugin>`.
Read barriers are needed by fewer algorithms than write barriers, and may have a
greater performance impact since pointer reads are more frequent than writes.