Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "r84031".
Did you mean:
r84032
2009 Dec 08
2
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in TCO?
...sn't TCO-related (four failed
checks in the Pure interpreter) when reenabling lazy compilation with
DisableLazyCompilation(false). These seem to go all the way back to your
commit of Nick's patch (r84032 = "Keep track of stubs that are created"
fails exactly the same checks, while r84031 is fine). Those four Pure
checks all involve anonymous closures (lambdas); I still need to look at
Nick's patch to figure out what exactly is going on there.
Now I might be able to live without lazy compilation (even though it
noticably slows down some code), but it goes without saying that as...
2009 Dec 08
0
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in TCO?
...(four failed
> checks in the Pure interpreter) when reenabling lazy compilation with
> DisableLazyCompilation(false). These seem to go all the way back to your
> commit of Nick's patch (r84032 = "Keep track of stubs that are created"
> fails exactly the same checks, while r84031 is fine). Those four Pure
> checks all involve anonymous closures (lambdas); I still need to look at
> Nick's patch to figure out what exactly is going on there.
>
> Now I might be able to live without lazy compilation (even though it
> noticably slows down some code), but it goe...
2009 Nov 29
0
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in TCO?
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
>> I've come up with the following minimal repro that segfaults on my machine:
>
> Jon, were you able to resolve this?
>
> FWIW, TOT is causing all kinds of weird segfaults related to tail calls
> in my Pure interpreter, too (at least on x86-64). In my case these
2009 Nov 29
7
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in TCO?
Jon Harrop wrote:
> I've come up with the following minimal repro that segfaults on my machine:
Jon, were you able to resolve this?
FWIW, TOT is causing all kinds of weird segfaults related to tail calls
in my Pure interpreter, too (at least on x86-64). In my case these seem
to be limited to the JIT, however (batch-compiled Pure programs via
opt+llc all work fine, even with TCO), so