search for: main_main1_entry

....type Main_main1_info, @object Main_main1_info: .Lc1Df: leaq -8(%rbp),%rax cmpq %r15,%rax jb .Lc1Dh [...] .data .globl Main_main1_closure .type Main_main1_closure, @object Main_main1_closure: .quad Main_main1_info .quad 0 Without TNTC we instead generated code of this form: .text .globl Main_main1_entry .type Main_main1_entry, @function Main_main1_entry: .LFB15: leaq -8(%rbp),%rax cmpq %r15,%rax jb .Lc1Dh [...] .data .globl Main_main1_info .align 8 .type Main_main1_info, @object .size Main_main1_info, 40 Main_main1_info: .quad Main_main1_entry .quad 0 .quad 270582939663 .quad 4294967...

On Feb 13, 2012, at 6:49 AM, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On behalf of GHC hackers, I would like to discuss the possibility of > having a proper implementation of the tables-next-to-code optimisation > in LLVM. It would be great to have this. However, the design will be tricky. Is there anything that spells out how the TNTC optimization works at the actual machine instruction level? It

Hello everyone, On behalf of GHC hackers, I would like to discuss the possibility of having a proper implementation of the tables-next-to-code optimisation in LLVM. Currently, the object code produced by all three GHC backends follows the convention that the table with the metadata of a closure is located immediately before the code of the closure. This makes it possible to get to both the code