search for: notaill

> That was what I had in mind: the function attribute blocks tail call for statically direct calls but doesn't promise > anything (in fact, does nothing) for indirect calls. > > Do you think we shouldn't make any promises for statically direct calls either? I don't see why it's hard to keep the > promise that direct tail calls will be blocked. Do you have a

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > > On 09/28/2015 10:38 PM, Sanjoy Das wrote: > >> >> > That was what I had in mind: the function attribute blocks tail call >> for statically direct calls but doesn't promise >> > anything (in fact, does nothing) for indirect calls. >> > >>

On 09/23/2015 08:48 AM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Philip Reames > <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > > To be clear, this is a debuging aid only? It's not something > required for correctness? I'm somewhat bothered by that because > it seems like it would be a useful

I've been discussing the clang-side patch and making changes based on the feedback I got for the last few weeks. Aaron has reviewed the patch and he thinks it's OK now. http://reviews.llvm.org/D12922 Do you have further comments on the llvm-side patch or the semantics of the function attribute? Since the last time we discussed on the list, I've made changes to disallow virtual

...discuss what kinds of source level attributes we'll > need. My plan is to attach an attribute that indicates notail > (something like no_direct_tail) to the called function declaration and > definition and then mark all the direct call sites in the IR that call > the function as notaill. In addition to that, it seems like we want to > have a way to attach the attribute directly to the call site: > > void (*indirectCall)(int, int, int); > > void foo1(int a, int b) { > (*indirectCall)(a, b, c) __attribute__((notail)); > } I think you're going to want to ha...

...level attributes >> we'll need. My plan is to attach an attribute that indicates >> notail (something like no_direct_tail) to the called function >> declaration and definition and then mark all the direct call >> sites in the IR that call the function as notaill. In addition to >> that, it seems like we want to have a way to attach the attribute >> directly to the call site: >> >> void (*indirectCall)(int, int, int); >> >> void foo1(int a, int b) { >> (*indirectCall)(a, b, c) __attribute__((not...

To be clear, this is a debuging aid only? It's not something required for correctness? I'm somewhat bothered by that because it seems like it would be a useful implementation tool for higher level languages. A couple of thoughts in no particular order: 1) Can we always annotate the call site rather than the function? That removes the unpredictability due to optimization. 2) Calling

+llvm-dev Can you give a bit of background on what you're trying to address here? After reading through the discussion and seeing that this is a best effort flag, I'm not sure that a function attribute is the best way to describe this. I'm open to being convinced it is, but I'd like to hear a bit more about the use case and get broader visibility on the proposal first.

On 2020-05-08 1:34 p.m., Xun Li wrote: > Hi, > > I was looking into the implementation of TailRecursionElimination, and > noticed that we have the constrain that if any call uses a local, even > though it doesn't capture the local, it would still prohibit TCE. This > contain seems unnecessary and overly limiting? I think it's a necessary limitation. The idea is that

On 2020-05-08 2:58 p.m., Xun Li wrote: > Eli, > Yes I was referring to AllCallsAreTailCalls. I will take a look at how > to improve this. > > Nick, > Thanks. I agree that's the proper constrain to mark a call as > tailcall, however not being able to mark a call as tailcall shouldn't > completely kill TCE. (i.e. AllCallsAreTailCalls seems overly > limiting). I

Hi, I was looking into the implementation of TailRecursionElimination, and noticed that we have the constrain that if any call uses a local, even though it doesn't capture the local, it would still prohibit TCE. This contain seems unnecessary and overly limiting? Relevant code is here:

Our newly build xen kernel does not boot. The error message is : Invalid or unsupported executable format. I have build xen from the xen-2.0.4 source (make world, make install) on a debian sarge system. I have not changed any of the kernel configurations, I did make an initrd image. The entry in my menu.lst is : title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.10-xen0 root (hd0,0) #

Hello, VERSIONS tried: 3.0.9 and 3.0.10 Function: Domain Controller Summary: Using the recycle vfs module, files deleted are not "touched" Details: I've set up VFS recycle so that when a user deletes a file it gets moved to the .salvage directory. recycle:touch = yes is set, but the moved (deleted) file still contains the original time stamp when doing an "ls -al".

Hello, I am in need of a Samba Performance Consultant immediatley. My box is just not fast enough, and I still have 8 business hours left. Consultant should recommend: - fastest Samba options for our setup - fastest Linux kernel options / sysctl parameters - fastest Windows client options / registry settings I expect to pay $500 for 2 hours of your time. You should be an expert. Its 12:30

On Sep 20, 11:50 am, wbrana@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Daniel J Blueman > > <daniel.blueman@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 19, 7:20 pm, wbr...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> RAID details: > >> > >> md8 : active raid10 sda7[0] sdd7[3] sdc7[2] sdb7[1] > >> 62925824 blocks 256K chunks 2 far-copies [4/4] [UUUU] >

I Want to have a copmparsion with NFS v3 that shows some statistics with both attribute intensive and data intensive clients. /P -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vcard.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 392 bytes Desc: Card for Patrik Linder Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/19990301/59f94bcf/vcard.vcf

I have such problem: When i start Warcraft 3 (or WOW) in opengl mode (or DirectX, no matter) i got theese lines in console: > ibGL error: drmMap of framebuffer failed (Cannot allocate memory) > libGL error: reverting to (slow) indirect rendering Game works fine but low perfomance. I really can't find solution in the internet. My system: Ati X1600 Mobility Radeon - ATI 8.3