search for: forcetailcall

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "forcetailcall".

2019 Sep 18
2
Setting llvm::TargetOptions::GuaranteedTailCallOpt in LTO Code Generation
...d be. > I guess the question is what interface would work for you. Would passing an internal option like what works on lld or what you are doing with llc be acceptable? If you need a more officially supported mechanism, IMO the best way is probably to create a new function attribute (e.g. 'forcetailcall' or something equivalent to what GuaranteedTailCallOpt implies). That would be completely linker agnostic and also not rely on internal options. > Or am I going to have to resign myself to waiting until lld is well > supported at linking mach-o files? > +Rui Ueyama <ruiu at googl...
2019 Sep 18
3
Setting llvm::TargetOptions::GuaranteedTailCallOpt in LTO Code Generation
...lld or what you are doing with llc be acceptable? > > Yes, this would be fine with us, if it's possible. How would I go about making this happen? > > > If you need a more officially supported mechanism, IMO the best way is probably to create a new function attribute (e.g. 'forcetailcall' or something equivalent to what GuaranteedTailCallOpt implies). That would be completely linker agnostic and also not rely on internal options. > > > Or am I going to have to resign myself to waiting until lld is well supported at linking mach-o files? > > +Rui Ueyama <mai...
2019 Sep 16
2
Setting llvm::TargetOptions::GuaranteedTailCallOpt in LTO Code Generation
Hi, I am lead developer of a project that is using LLVM to implement an ahead-of-time compiled functional language. We use llc -tailcallopt to ensure that functions that end in a tail call are compiled to a tail call at the machine level, because we have a number of cases in our interpreter where functions with different function signatures call one another in deeply nested recursive calls. We
2019 Sep 18
2
Setting llvm::TargetOptions::GuaranteedTailCallOpt in LTO Code Generation
...c be >> acceptable? >> > > Yes, this would be fine with us, if it's possible. How would I go about > making this happen? > > >> If you need a more officially supported mechanism, IMO the best way is >> probably to create a new function attribute (e.g. 'forcetailcall' or >> something equivalent to what GuaranteedTailCallOpt implies). That would be >> completely linker agnostic and also not rely on internal options. >> >> >>> Or am I going to have to resign myself to waiting until lld is well >>> supported at linking...