Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "implement_keepstubs".
2012 Mar 06
0
[LLVMdev] Performance degradation when repeatedly exchanging JITted functions
> I don't think that a patch implementing any of those approaches would be
> accepted, that's why I am tending towards implementing it outside of LLVM.
Why not? If they make LLVM better and aren't hacks, why wouldn't they be accepted?
________________________________________
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Clemens Hammacher
2012 Mar 07
1
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Performance degradation when repeatedly exchanging JITted functions
...ere?
If so, that person can also apply the fix and testcase for bug 12197,
which I stumbled across and is slightly related to this one.
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12197
Cheers,
Clemens
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: implement_KeepStubs.patch
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120307/d709bfdb/attachment.ksh>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: testcase_KeepStubs.patch
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/2012...
2012 Mar 06
2
[LLVMdev] Performance degradation when repeatedly exchanging JITted functions
On 3/6/12 5:28 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> Advantage of using the latest address: one saved jmp per call.
Per newly JITted call ;)
> Advantage of using the initial address: easier G/C of intermediate
> versions, less things to keep track of.
I still think both versions require larger changes. When using the
latest address, you have to keep track of all JITted functions per