search for: canguaranteetco

...>> >>>>> Any other suggestions are always welcomed. >>>> >>>> Why aren’t checking for the presence of a tail call? >>> Are you asking about if tail call optimization is enable or not? If not then above method is inspired from X86ISelLowering::canGuaranteeTCO(). >>> >> >> Are we turning calls into tail calls during codegen? >> My assumption is that tail call is inferred on the IR, so you can inspect every *call site*. > The final decision on whether to tail call or not is done during instruction selection (it is part of...

...t;>>> Any other suggestions are always welcomed. >>>>> >>>>> Why aren’t checking for the presence of a tail call? >>>>> Are you asking about if tail call optimization is enable or not? If not then above method is inspired from X86ISelLowering::canGuaranteeTCO(). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Are we turning calls into tail calls during codegen? >>>> My assumption is that tail call is inferred on the IR, so you can inspect every *call site*. >>> The final decision on whether to tail call or not is done duri...

...n false; >>> } >>> >>> Any other suggestions are always welcomed. >> >> Why aren’t checking for the presence of a tail call? >> Are you asking about if tail call optimization is enable or not? If not then above method is inspired from X86ISelLowering::canGuaranteeTCO(). >> > > Are we turning calls into tail calls during codegen? > My assumption is that tail call is inferred on the IR, so you can inspect every *call site*. The final decision on whether to tail call or not is done during instruction selection (it is part of X86TargetLowering::Lo...

...eturn false; >>> } >>> >>> Any other suggestions are always welcomed. >> >> Why aren’t checking for the presence of a tail call? > Are you asking about if tail call optimization is enable or not? If not then above method is inspired from X86ISelLowering::canGuaranteeTCO(). > Are we turning calls into tail calls during codegen? My assumption is that tail call is inferred on the IR, so you can inspect every *call site*. Mehdi > -Vivek >> >> — >> Mehdi >> >>> >>> and I am checking this condition along with ha...

...> >>>>> Any other suggestions are always welcomed. >>>> >>>> Why aren’t checking for the presence of a tail call? >>>> Are you asking about if tail call optimization is enable or not? If not then above method is inspired from X86ISelLowering::canGuaranteeTCO(). >>>> >>> >>> Are we turning calls into tail calls during codegen? >>> My assumption is that tail call is inferred on the IR, so you can inspect every *call site*. >> The final decision on whether to tail call or not is done during instruction selec...

...se; >> } >> >> Any other suggestions are always welcomed. >> >> >> Why aren’t checking for the presence of a tail call? >> > Are you asking about if tail call optimization is enable or not? If not > then above method is inspired from X86ISelLowering::canGuaranteeTCO(). > > > Are we turning calls into tail calls during codegen? > My assumption is that tail call is inferred on the IR, so you can inspect > every *call site*. > > The final decision on whether to tail call or not is done during > instruction selection (it is part of > X86...

...gt; return true; > return false; > } > > Any other suggestions are always welcomed. > > > Why aren’t checking for the presence of a tail call? > Are you asking about if tail call optimization is enable or not? If not then above method is inspired from X86ISelLowering::canGuaranteeTCO(). -Vivek > > — > Mehdi > > > and I am checking this condition along with hasLocalLinkage() and > hasAddressTaken(). > > Due to this test-suite now has only 2 runtime failure where as before this > there were around 43 due to local function related optimization. But...

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:25 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello , > > To solve this bug locally I have given preference to tail call optimization over local function related optimization in IPRA. I have added following method to achieve this: > > bool isEligibleForTailCallOptimization(Function *F) { > CallingConv::ID CC =