search for: r88983

...did something wrong in > fixing far calls in the JIT. Jeffrey, I took a closer look at this now, and all the TCO-related weirdness I see in the Pure interpreter is indeed related to your commit in r88984 ("Make X86-64 in the Large model always emit 64-bit calls"). Up to and including r88983, Pure passes all checks (at least with eager compilation, see below), with r88984 and later more than half of the checks fail. This only happens when using dynamic compilation. As I reported earlier, batch compilation works fine, even if the large code model is used. OTOH, dynamic compilation is br...

...> fixing far calls in the JIT. > > Jeffrey, I took a closer look at this now, and all the TCO-related > weirdness I see in the Pure interpreter is indeed related to your commit > in r88984 ("Make X86-64 in the Large model always emit 64-bit calls"). > Up to and including r88983, Pure passes all checks (at least with eager > compilation, see below), with r88984 and later more than half of the > checks fail. This only happens when using dynamic compilation. As I > reported earlier, batch compilation works fine, even if the large code > model is used. OTOH, dynam...

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

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