search for: interaprocedural

...izations when functions are added/ removed/ > > changed? Are there parameters to tune the compiler's aggressiveness? > > There is a JIT::recompileAndRelinkFunction() method, but it doesn't > optimize the code. Ok, this makes sense. However, am I correct in assuming that the interaprocedural optimizations performed in gccas will make it problematic to call 'JIT::recompileAndRelinkFunction()' . For example, suppose I run run some module that looks like module a int foo () { ... bar() ... } int bar () { ... } through all of those optimizations. Will the result nessisarily...

...tly, you may get multiple perspectives, and the discussion is > archived for future LLVMers who are looking for some similar advice. I agree with misha. This should definately be discussed on-list if possible. >> Ok, this makes sense. However, am I correct in assuming that the >> interaprocedural optimizations performed in gccas will make it >> problematic to call 'JIT::recompileAndRelinkFunction()' . For example, >> suppose I run run some module that looks like ... >> through all of those optimizations. Will the result nessisarily have a >> bar() function?...

...pectives, and the discussion is >> archived for future LLVMers who are looking for some similar advice. > > I agree with misha. This should definately be discussed on-list if > possible. > >>> Ok, this makes sense. However, am I correct in assuming that the >>> interaprocedural optimizations performed in gccas will make it >>> problematic to call 'JIT::recompileAndRelinkFunction()' . For >>> example, >>> suppose I run run some module that looks like > > ... > >>> through all of those optimizations. Will the result ness...

...er them. The benefits are that you may get your response faster than emailing someone directly, you may get multiple perspectives, and the discussion is archived for future LLVMers who are looking for some similar advice. > Ok, this makes sense. However, am I correct in assuming that the > interaprocedural optimizations performed in gccas will make it > problematic to call 'JIT::recompileAndRelinkFunction()' . For example, > suppose I run run some module that looks like > > module a > > int foo () { > ... > bar() > ... > } > > int bar () { > ... &...

Hi, Alexander! On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:59:06PM -0400, Alexander Friedman wrote: > I am in the preliminary stages of adding a JIT compiler to a sizable > Scheme system (PLT Scheme). Cool! > The original plan was to use GNU Lightning, but 1) it seems to be > dead, and 2) LLVM has already done a huge amount of stuff that I would > have had to write (poorly) from scratch. Maybe

Hi List, I am in the preliminary stages of adding a JIT compiler to a sizable Scheme system (PLT Scheme). The original plan was to use GNU Lightning, but 1) it seems to be dead, and 2) LLVM has already done a huge amount of stuff that I would have had to write (poorly) from scratch. At the moment, LLVM seems to be the ideal choice for implementing the Scheme JIT, but there are problems that need