search for: tails

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 6986 matches for "tails".

Did you mean: tail
2003 Jan 24
0
new function: twotailed.colors {base}
I suggest to add a new function to create a vector of n ``contiguous'' colors with tails in two colors. This function is similar to `cm.colors' but the colors can be choosen by hsv values. This function could be used e.g. as alternative to the default ``col.regions'' in `levelplot'. Perhaps the arguments in the following code could be simplified. Wolfram Fischer #-...
2009 Nov 12
4
[LLVMdev] opt -std-compile-opts breaks tail calls
tail calls are only implemented for fastcall calling convention if i remeber right from my inquiries. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20091112/e8f1dd2a/attachment.html>
2018 Jan 03
3
[PATCH] test-virt-tail: Fix failing cat/test-virt-tail.sh test case
>From IRC channel: <StenaviN> Can someone confirm cat/test-virt-tail.sh works in 'master'? <StenaviN> I get https://pastebin.com/GBkg7Vtw <rwmjones> StenaviN: yes it works for me; the error is not very helpful, you'll need to set LIBGUESTFS_DEBUG=1 LIBGUESTFS_TRACE=1 <StenaviN> https://pastebin.com/yABgCHwV <rwmjones> I think the error is:
2009 Feb 22
2
[LLVMdev] Broke my tail (call)
On Sunday 22 February 2009 20:36:52 Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > I have written a variety tests of tail calls for my HLVM and all passed > > with flying colors until I wrote this test (which is actually for > > algebraic datatypes) and discovered that it segfaults after ~100k > > iterations through what I think should be a tail call. Here's the IR: >
2016 Jun 28
2
Tail call optimization is getting affected due to local function related optimization with IPRA
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de
2009 Feb 23
3
[LLVMdev] Broke my tail (call)
Hello Duncan and Jon, I am the criminal responsible for the tail call implementation in the backends. On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Jon, > >> >From what I have understood of the LLVM docs about when tail calls get >> eliminated on x86 and x64 it should be a tail call, yes. See below. > this list is for the code
2014 Jun 16
4
[PATCH 01/11] qspinlock: A simple generic 4-byte queue spinlock
...option) any later version. > + * > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > + * GNU General Public License for more details. > + * > + * (C) Copyright 2013-2014 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. > + * > + * Authors: Waiman Long <waiman.long at hp.com> > + * Peter Zijlstra <pzijlstr at redhat.com> > + */ > +#include <linux/smp.h> > +#include <linux/bug.h> &...
2014 Jun 16
4
[PATCH 01/11] qspinlock: A simple generic 4-byte queue spinlock
...option) any later version. > + * > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > + * GNU General Public License for more details. > + * > + * (C) Copyright 2013-2014 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. > + * > + * Authors: Waiman Long <waiman.long at hp.com> > + * Peter Zijlstra <pzijlstr at redhat.com> > + */ > +#include <linux/smp.h> > +#include <linux/bug.h> &...
2016 Jun 28
2
Tail call optimization is getting affected due to local function related optimization with IPRA
Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 28, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > > >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote:
2009 Nov 13
0
[LLVMdev] opt -std-compile-opts breaks tail calls
I've run into some issues with tail calls in the past, make sure you are doing the following: 1. Call should be marked with tail (obviously) 2. Next statement after tail call should be 'return void' 3. Use fast call convention for tail calls 4. Make sure the function you are calling doesn't use the 'noreturn' attribute. 5. Turn on tail calls in llc (if using the static
2009 Feb 23
0
[LLVMdev] Broke my tail (call)
Hi Jon, > >From what I have understood of the LLVM docs about when tail calls get > eliminated on x86 and x64 it should be a tail call, yes. > > http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#tailcallopt > > . Caller and callee have the calling convention fastcc. > . The call is a tail call - in tail position (ret immediately follows call and > ret uses value of call or
2016 Oct 03
3
[PATCH v3 0/2] New tool: virt-tail.
Since v2: - Fix the things that Pino mentioned, except the recursion. - Implement Windows support. For Windows support to be sane, I had to inline the add_and_mount code. Rich.
2015 Sep 23
3
[PATCH] D12923: Add support for function attribute "notail"
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
2013 Aug 02
2
[LLVMdev] Tail calls (TCO) in PNaCL | PNaCl Bitcode reference manual
On 1 August 2013 00:11, Travis Cross <tc at travislists.com> wrote: > On 2013-07-30 22:11, Eli Bendersky wrote: > > we've published an initial version of the PNaCl bitcode reference > > manual online - > > http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/pnacl/bitcode-abi. The PNaCl > > bitcode is a restricted subset of LLVM IR. > > > > Any comments would be
2017 Jan 05
5
Tail calls and portability
I have been working on adding proper tail (via `become`) to rustc. I was able to make them work (some parts of the type checker aren't implemented yet). However, I ran into an LLVM-related problem. LLVM claims to support proper tail calls when fastcc is used — but only on i386, x86-64 and PowerPC. Is this accurate? Will proper tail calls be supported on WebAssembly? Are they supported on
2016 Jun 29
0
Tail call optimization is getting affected due to local function related optimization with IPRA
I have tried out the following code which examines each call site in a module for tail call and do not perform optimization in such case: On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < >
2016 Jun 28
0
Tail call optimization is getting affected due to local function related optimization with IPRA
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de <mailto:matze at braunis.de>> wrote: > >> >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
2016 Oct 03
3
[PATCH v2 0/2] New tool: virt-tail.
Nothing new in the virt-tail command itself, but the second commit includes a simple test. Rich.
2007 Jan 31
2
Bug in 'pchisq' for x=0.0 (PR#9485)
The function 'pchisq' from the 'stats' library gives a wrong result if the argument equals exactly zero: # Upper tail of central 1-df chi^2 distribution > pchisq(1 , 1, ncp=0, lower.tail = F, log.p = FALSE) [1] 0.3173105 > pchisq(0.5 , 1, ncp=0, lower.tail = F, log.p = FALSE) [1] 0.4795001 > pchisq(0.01 , 1, ncp=0, lower.tail = F, log.p = FALSE) [1]
2011 Dec 08
2
[LLVMdev] Implementing devirtualization
.... & I'm also going to CC Eric Christopher because he > mentioned he'd had some thoughts on how to achieve this (the general > problem described in 810 about how to pass assumptions/facts from the > frontend to the backend) & I never got around to asking him about the > details. > > This approach should stay even more in LLVM IR than your proposed > solution of metadata or debug info, but it may have > limitations/problems that your proposed approach does not - so I > certainly wouldn't rule anything out just yet. > > - David > -------------- n...