Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "checktailcallreturnconstraint".
Did you mean:
checktailcallreturnconstraints
2008 Apr 24
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: PowerPC tail call optimization patch
...tches :).
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
.
>> +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call,
>> ...
> That's fine. Please break it into two parts and move the target
> independent part out.
Done - see CheckTailCallReturnConstraints() in TargetLowering. The
rest of the function is still target dependent. PowerPC currently can
not tail call optimize byval functions, no pic/got code for non-local
calls. On x86 no support for pic/got code on x86-64 for non-local
calls.
> I am not sure. Just thinking aloud. It would be nice...
2008 Apr 24
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: PowerPC tail call optimization patch
...PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
> .
> >> +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call,
> >> ...
>
> > That's fine. Please break it into two parts and move the target
> > independent part out.
> Done - see CheckTailCallReturnConstraints() in TargetLowering. The
> rest of the function is still target dependent. PowerPC currently can
> not tail call optimize byval functions, no pic/got code for non-local
> calls. On x86 no support for pic/got code on x86-64 for non-local
> calls.
>
>
> > I am not sure....
2009 Feb 24
0
[LLVMdev] Broke my tail (call)
On Tuesday 24 February 2009 22:19:27 Arnold Schwaighofer wrote:
> What i was trying to say is that if you have
>
> i32 a() {
> %1 = tailcall b()
> ret %1
> }
>
>
> i32 b() {
> %1 = tailcall c()
> ret %1
> }
>
> i32 c() {
> %1 = tailcall d()
> ret %1
> }
>
> i32 d() {
> ret i32 5
> }
>
> only d() will actually
2009 Feb 24
2
[LLVMdev] Broke my tail (call)
0, i32 %1)
>>
>> Note that if you have a series of sequential recursive tail calls this
>> move will only performed once (at the bottom of the recursion,
>> respectively when the recursion returns) so it's impact on performance
>> should be minimal.
>
> Hmm, that makes it sound as though the moves between a tail call and the
> following return are
2008 Apr 22
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: PowerPC tail call optimization patch
On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:58 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com>
> wrote:
>> More nitpicks:
>> ...
>> No need for else here. :-)
> Done
>> SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize;
>>
>> Just change last statement to
>> int SPDiff = (int)...
> Done
>>
2008 Apr 22
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: PowerPC tail call optimization patch
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
> More nitpicks:
> ...
> No need for else here. :-)
Done
> SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize;
>
> Just change last statement to
> int SPDiff = (int)...
Done
>
> +bool
> +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call,
> +