search for: harrop

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 400 matches for "harrop".

2009 Nov 19
7
[LLVMdev] Google's Go
On Nov 19, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > >> In this case, the assertion that LLVM is slow is correct: it's >> definitely slower than a non-optimizing compiler. > > I'm *very* surprised by this and will test it myself... Compared to a compiler in the same category as PCC, whose pinnacle of op...
2009 Nov 19
0
[LLVMdev] Google's Go
On Thursday 19 November 2009 19:48:18 Owen Anderson wrote: > On Nov 19, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > >> In this case, the assertion that LLVM is slow is correct: it's > >> definitely slower than a non-optimizing compiler. > > > > I'm *very* surprised by this and will test it myself... I've tested it and LLVM is indeed 2x slower to compile, althou...
2009 Feb 01
7
[LLVMdev] GEPping GEPs and first-class structs
...passing pointers to structs. However, the GEP instruction only handles pointer types. So I do not understand how you will be able to extract the fields of a struct when it is received as a value type. Will the GEP instruction be altered so that it can be applied to structs directly? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
2010 Jan 04
3
[LLVMdev] Tail Call Optimisation
On 04/01/2010, at 3:01 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Monday 04 January 2010 01:12:55 Simon Harris wrote: >> I'm investigating "improving" the TCO facilities in LLVM to provide for >> "hard" tail calls. Specifically, this would involve extending the existing >> implementation to discard the sta...
2009 Feb 05
4
[LLVMdev] IR in XML
Is there a tool to spit LLVM's IR out in a more machine-friendly syntax like XML? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
2010 Jan 04
0
[LLVMdev] Tail Call Optimisation
On Monday 04 January 2010 03:33:06 Simon Harris wrote: > On 04/01/2010, at 3:01 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > I am certainly interested in tail calls because my HLVM project relies > > upon LLVM's tail call elimination. However, I do not understand what tail > > calls LLVM is not currently eliminating that you plan to eliminate? > > Mutual recursion for a start: >...
2010 Feb 06
2
[LLVMdev] Removing -tailcallopt?
On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: >> Does anyone actually using it? > > Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. Ok, that's all I need to know. > >> I'd prefer to just remove it to clean up the implementation if...
2009 Jan 04
3
[LLVMdev] HLVM
...be a high-level VM specifically for dynamic languages and this post indicates that it was integrated into the LLVM project last year: http://www.nabble.com/NEWS:-HLVM-merges-with-LLVM-td9627113.html But I cannot find any code in LLVM that looks like it would have come from HLVM. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
2007 Dec 12
2
[LLVMdev] ocaml binding question
On Monday 10 December 2007 23:52, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On 2007-12-10, at 18:28, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Incidentally, should more OCaml stuff beyond the bindings be part of > > LLVM or would it be better to fork them into a separate project > > Can you be more specific than "stuff"? I'm thinking of a library that compiles an AST represented by an OCaml data...
2008 Feb 14
2
[LLVMdev] Higher-level OCaml bindings
On Thursday 14 February 2008 16:33:25 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Does CLang use a suitable intermediate representation for this to be > > possible? > > The higher level IR that clang uses is basically a C AST. This interface > is under constant flux though. If you wanted to do this, it would be > very reasonable to just cons...
2010 Feb 06
0
[LLVMdev] Removing -tailcallopt?
On Saturday 06 February 2010 02:42:47 Evan Cheng wrote: > On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: > >> Does anyone actually using it? > > > > Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. > > Ok, that's all I need to know. > > >> I'd prefer to just remove it to...
2009 Dec 07
3
[LLVMdev] Documentation of malloc/free
...t wasn't necessary, and the malloc > 'instruction' didn't support 64-bit targets. BTW, what is the state of having to index into structs using i32 and not i64 even on a 64-bit platform? Is that due to be changed as well or is there some reason for requiring an i32? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
2009 Jan 30
5
[LLVMdev] Performance vs other VMs
...uspect the JVM is using alias information to perform optimizations that LLVM and llvm-gcc probably do not do. I am not sure what causes the performance discrepancy on LU. Perhaps the JVM is generating SSE instructions. Does llvm-gcc generate SSE instructions under any circumstances? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
2009 Jan 31
1
[LLVMdev] -msse3 can degrade performance
On Saturday 31 January 2009 03:42:04 Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst > > tweaking the command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 > > flag > > The -msse3 flag? Does the -msse2 flag have a similar effect? Yes: $ llvm-...
2009 Feb 19
6
[LLVMdev] Improving performance with optimization passes
.... *) add_cfg_simplification pm; add_memory_to_register_promotion pm; and then I apply "PassManager.run_function" to every function after it is validated. Any idea what I might be doing wrong? Has anyone else got this functionality giving performance boosts from OCaml? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
2009 Nov 25
3
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in TCO?
...e type unit in ML, so it conveys no information and can be returned as anything). That makes me think this has been a bug in LLVM rather than in my own code. I'm using LLVM 2.6. Anyone recognise this as a bug in TCO fixed since then or should I try to boil it down and submit it? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
2010 Jan 04
2
[LLVMdev] Tail Call Optimisation
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Monday 04 January 2010 03:33:06 Simon Harris wrote: >> On 04/01/2010, at 3:01 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: >> > I am certainly interested in tail calls because my HLVM project relies >> > upon LLVM's tail call elimination. However...
2009 Jun 18
0
[LLVMdev] ML types in LLVM
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 15:44:04 Aaron Gray wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > >Even if this puts LLVM at an unfair disadvantage, I think you will find > >that > >LLVM will thrash MLton's current x86 backend anyway. > > > >I did some benchmarking on HLVM and found that it was often several times > >faster than OCaml when the GC...
2008 Sep 06
4
[LLVMdev] OCaml bindings to LLVM
...m I calling it incorrectly or is this something that can be optimized in the OCaml bindings? Secondly, I happened to notice that JIT compiled code executed on the fly does not read from the stdin of the host OCaml program although it can write to stdout. Is this a bug? Many thanks, -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
2007 Dec 01
4
[LLVMdev] Bounds checking
Does LLVM hoist bounds checks out of inner loops? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e