search for: fct3

...mean by full and accurate stack frame? Without this definition, this is difficult to give you any feedback. In particular, I do not see what it means when we use inlining. E.g., what do you expect from code like this: static void fct1(…) { ... } static void fct2(…) { … fct1(…) ... } void fct3(…) { fct1(...) … fct2(…) … } Assuming everything is inlined in fct3, you get: void fct3(…) { …. 1. fct1_inst1… fct1_instN …. 2. fct2_inst1… fct2_instK 3. fct1_inst1… fct1_instN 4. fct2_instzK+1… fct2_instN ... } Does it mean you what something like this each point of inte...

...) calls in that path which prevent static analysis. Does that help clarify what we're looking for? Philip > E.g., what do you expect from code like this: > static void fct1(…) { > ... > } > > static void fct2(…) { > … > fct1(…) > ... > } > > void fct3(…) { > fct1(...) > … > fct2(…) > … > } > > Assuming everything is inlined in fct3, you get: > void fct3(…) { > …. > 1. fct1_inst1… fct1_instN > …. > 2. fct2_inst1… fct2_instK > 3. fct1_inst1… fct1_instN > 4. fct2_instzK+1… fct2_instN &...

...larify what we're looking for? > > Philip > > >> E.g., what do you expect from code like this: >> static void fct1(…) { >> ... >> } >> >> static void fct2(…) { >> … >> fct1(…) >> ... >> } >> >> void fct3(…) { >> fct1(...) >> … >> fct2(…) >> … >> } >> >> Assuming everything is inlined in fct3, you get: >> void fct3(…) { >> …. >> 1. fct1_inst1… fct1_instN >> …. >> 2. fct2_inst1… fct2_instK >> 3. fct1_in...

Is there a known way to preserve a full and accurate stack trace while utilizing most of LLVM's optimization abilities? We are investigating using LLVM as a JIT for a language which requires the ability to generate an accurate stack trace from any arbitrary point(1) during the execution. I know that we can make this work by doing inlining externally, manually recording virtual frames,

...revent static analysis. > > Does that help clarify what we're looking for? > > Philip > > > E.g., what do you expect from code like this: > static void fct1(…) { > ... > } > > static void fct2(…) { > … > fct1(…) > ... > } > > void fct3(…) { > fct1(...) > … > fct2(…) > … > } > > Assuming everything is inlined in fct3, you get: > void fct3(…) { > …. > 1. fct1_inst1… fct1_instN > …. > 2. fct2_inst1… fct2_instK > 3. fct1_inst1… fct1_instN > 4. fct2_instzK+1… fct2_instN...

..., what do you expect from code like this: >>> static void fct1(…) { >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> static void fct2(…) { >>> … >>> fct1(…) >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> void fct3(…) { >>> fct1(...) >>> … >>> fct2(…) >>> … >>> } >>> >>> Assuming everything is inlined in fct3, you get: >>> void fct3(…) { >>> …. >>> 1. fct1_inst1… fct1_inst...

...__attribute__((__vector_size__(16))); v4f32 fct1(v4f32 x) { v4f32 y; y[0] = std::sin(x[0]); y[1] = std::sin(x[1]); y[2] = std::sin(x[2]); y[3] = std::sin(x[3]); return y; } v4f32 fct2(v4f32 x) { v4f32 y; for (int i = 0; i < 4; ++i) y[i] = std::sin(x[i]); return y; } void fct3(float *x) { #pragma clang loop vectorize(enable) for (int i = 0; i < 16; ++i) x[i] = sinf(x[i]); } Which I compiled with: clang++ -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -c -o vec.o vec.cc -lmvec -fno-math-errno And here is what I get: vec.o: file format elf64-x86-64 Disassembly of sectio...

I have the data similar to the following in a data frame: LastName Department Salary 1 Johnson IT 56000 2 James HR 54223 3 Howe Finance 80000 4 Jones Finance 82000 5 Norwood IT 67000 6 Benson Sales 76000 7 Smith Sales 65778 8 Baker HR 56778 9 Dempsey HR 78999 10 Nolan