search for: notail

...t tail calls will be blocked. Do you have a particular optimization in mind that would be difficult or > impossible to implement if we promised to block direct calls? I think in this scheme we'll have problems around devirtualization. For instance, you could start with a indirect call to a notail target that would get TCO'ed (as an indirect call), after which devirtualization or load/store motion would turn the indirect call into a direct call; and you'd end up with a direct tail call to a notail target. I don't know what your requirements are, but if I were you I'd design...

...>> particular optimization in mind that would be difficult or >> > impossible to implement if we promised to block direct calls? >> >> I think in this scheme we'll have problems around devirtualization. >> For instance, you could start with a indirect call to a notail target >> that would get TCO'ed (as an indirect call), after which >> devirtualization or load/store motion would turn the indirect call >> into a direct call; and you'd end up with a direct tail call to a >> notail target. >> > Sanjoy hits on some of the sa...

...r than the function? > That removes the unpredictability due to optimization. > > > Annotating the call site should be fine. For the use cases that we > care about, it probably isn't important to prevent tail calls on > indirect calls. Given this, I would lean towards a notail value being added as an alternative to "tail" and "musttail". This seems to fit the existing uses, doesn't have any obvious loop holes or best effort semantics, and solves the problem at hand. > > 2) Calling it something like "no-direct-tail-call" or...

...ular optimization in mind that would be difficult or >>> > impossible to implement if we promised to block direct calls? >>> >>> I think in this scheme we'll have problems around devirtualization. >>> For instance, you could start with a indirect call to a notail target >>> that would get TCO'ed (as an indirect call), after which >>> devirtualization or load/store motion would turn the indirect call >>> into a direct call; and you'd end up with a direct tail call to a >>> notail target. >>> >> Sanjo...

...oves the unpredictability due to optimization. >> >> >> Annotating the call site should be fine. For the use cases that >> we care about, it probably isn't important to prevent tail calls >> on indirect calls. > Given this, I would lean towards a notail value being added as an > alternative to "tail" and "musttail". This seems to fit the > existing uses, doesn't have any obvious loop holes or best effort > semantics, and solves the problem at hand. >> >> 2) Calling it something like...

...ation. >>> >>> >>> Annotating the call site should be fine. For the use cases >>> that we care about, it probably isn't important to prevent >>> tail calls on indirect calls. >> Given this, I would lean towards a notail value being added >> as an alternative to "tail" and "musttail". This seems to fit >> the existing uses, doesn't have any obvious loop holes or >> best effort semantics, and solves the problem at hand. >>> >>>...

...s in no particular order: 1) Can we always annotate the call site rather than the function? That removes the unpredictability due to optimization. 2) Calling it something like "no-direct-tail-call" or "prefer-no-tail" would remove some of the confusion value. When I see "notail", I expect that to always be respected; the best effort semantics come as a bit of a surprise. 3) This seems analogous to the "tail" marker in that it indicates a preference/option. Whatever we end up with, it needs to be a verifier option to have a "tail" or "mus...

...about the use case and get broader visibility on the proposal first. Philip On 09/16/2015 07:27 PM, Akira Hatanaka via llvm-commits wrote: > ahatanak created this revision. > ahatanak added a subscriber: llvm-commits. > > This patch adds support for a new IR function attribute "notail". The attribute is used to disable tail call optimization on calls to functions marked with the attribute. > > This attribute is different from the existing attribute "disable-tail-calls", which disables tail call optimizations on all call sites within the marked function. >...

...als at all, it is not sufficient for the callee to merely not capture them. Further to that point, we have an optimization in BasicAA where we conclude that a call marked "tail" does not alias any allocas of the calling function. There's a missed optimization here regarding "notail". Because "tail" can be used as an optimization for BasicAA, we should actually permit functions to be marked "tail" (not accessing any of the callers stack) and still be marked "notail" (the machine code must be a call, not a jump). These aren't actually...

...o merely not capture them. >> >> Further to that point, we have an optimization in BasicAA where we >> conclude that a call marked "tail" does not alias any allocas of the >> calling function. >> >> There's a missed optimization here regarding "notail". Because "tail" >> can be used as an optimization for BasicAA, we should actually permit >> functions to be marked "tail" (not accessing any of the callers stack) >> and still be marked "notail" (the machine code must be a call, not a >> j...

Hi, I was looking into the implementation of TailRecursionElimination, and noticed that we have the constrain that if any call uses a local, even though it doesn't capture the local, it would still prohibit TCE. This contain seems unnecessary and overly limiting? Relevant code is here:

Our newly build xen kernel does not boot. The error message is : Invalid or unsupported executable format. I have build xen from the xen-2.0.4 source (make world, make install) on a debian sarge system. I have not changed any of the kernel configurations, I did make an initrd image. The entry in my menu.lst is : title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.10-xen0 root (hd0,0) #

...can't automatically empty files in the .salvage directory based on the age its been there fore. Info: - Kernel 2.6.10 - This is a testing domain controller hence /home is in / - Partition is reiserfs3.6, and has quotas enabled. - FSTAB entry: /dev/hda3 / reiserfs notail,usrquota,grpquota 0 1 Homes share looks like this: [homes] comment = Home Directories valid users = %S read only = No browseable = No valid users = @ntadmins @ntresident # Hide files that linux permissions prevent access to hide unreadable = yes vfs object = recycle recycle:repository = .salvag...

...--- Network is all Gigabit Ethernet. There are 10 Windows 2000 clients, that poll a public shared directory for 60KB files, and read them off, no writing. The Samba server is a Dell Poweredge 2650 Perc 3/DC with a RAID stripe of 2 fast 144G drives. /dev/sdb1 on /exports type reiserfs (rw,noatime,notail) /dev/sdb1 274G 137G 137G 51% /exports Linux gs71 2.6.8-1.521smp #1 SMP Mon Aug 16 09:25:06 EDT 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/3.3.3/specs Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/i...

...=128 /dev/md8 > >> mount -t ext4 -o noatime,auto_da_alloc,commit=600 /dev/md8 /mnt/md8 Here, stripe-width should be 4* stride, not that it''ll make much difference. > >> Reiser3: > >> mount -t reiserfs /dev/md8 /mnt/md8 > >> mount -t reiserfs -o noatime,notail /dev/md8 /dev/md8 > >> > >> Ext4 results: > >> intial create total runs 10 avg 172.76 MB/s (user 0.43s sys 0.60s) > >> create total runs 14 avg 36.49 MB/s (user 0.42s sys 0.59s) > >> patch total runs 15 avg 15.16 MB/s (user 0.24s sys 0.49s) > >>...

I Want to have a copmparsion with NFS v3 that shows some statistics with both attribute intensive and data intensive clients. /P -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vcard.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 392 bytes Desc: Card for Patrik Linder Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/19990301/59f94bcf/vcard.vcf

...of framebuffer failed (Cannot allocate memory) > libGL error: reverting to (slow) indirect rendering Game works fine but low perfomance. I really can't find solution in the internet. My system: Ati X1600 Mobility Radeon - ATI 8.3 Proprietary Driver MTAB: Code: /dev/sda6 / reiserfs rw,notail 0 0 tmpfs /lib/init/rw tmpfs rw,nosuid,mode=0755 0 0 proc /proc proc rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev 0 0 sysfs /sys sysfs rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev 0 0 procbususb /proc/bus/usb usbfs rw 0 0 udev /dev tmpfs rw,mode=0755 0 0 tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs rw,nosuid,nodev 0 0 devpts /dev/pts devpts rw,noexec,nosuid,gid=5,m...