search for: tco

On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: > Does anyone actually using it? Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. > I'd prefer to just remove it to clean up the implementation if no one has > any objections. Are you saying that you want to remove LLVM's working TCO and replace it with something that is faster but broken? I think you may have misunderstood what TCO is and w...

Hi all, I've added tail call optimization to x86. This is different from what -tailcallopt does, which forces fastcc function to be tail callable. My changes detect opportunities to do tail call without having to change the ABI. I've looked at the codegen of -tailcallopt and it doesn't look all that good. Running it as a llcbeta option shows it significantly pessimize code in most

On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: >> Does anyone actually using it? > > Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. Ok, that's all I need to know. > >> I'd prefer to just remove it to clean up the implementation if no one has >> any objections. > > Are you saying that you want to remove LLVM's working TCO and replace it with > something that is faster...

Some frontends for LLVM require that LLVM perform tail call optimization (TCO) for correctness. Internally, LLVM refers to TCO of a non-recursive tail call as sibling call optimization, but I'm going to refer to that generically as TCO. Often, functional languages like Scheme have a language-level requirement that TCO occurs for any call in the tail position, and this...

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:55 PM, 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 most welcome. > > Hi Eli, > > I appreciate you for opening the process for inp...

Dear R-Help, I am trying to compute a new variable, let's call it "target cannon orientation (tco)" based conditionally on old variables, "TargetColor," "CannonOriB," and "CannonOriR." For every case in the data set, if TargetColor is "B" then I want tco to equal the value for that case of CannonOirB, else CannonOriR. I've tried writing for loops...

Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > Try batch compiling with the large code model. (llc -code-model=large) > If that also causes tail calls to break, then I 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...

...avis Cross [mailto:tc at travislists.com] Sent: 01 August 2013 07:55 To: Eli Bendersky Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; Arnold Schwaighofer; Stephen Lin; Akira Hatanaka; Evan Cheng; Chris Lattner; Dale Johannesen; Duncan Sands; Jeffrey Yasskin; Jon Harrop; David Terei Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Tail calls (TCO) in PNaCL | PNaCl Bitcode reference manual 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> http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/pna...

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 most welcome. Hi Eli, I appreciate you for opening the process for input and comments. One question stood out t...

...group. However, the user defined in the group cannot access the directory, gives access denied. Take a look at the settings, if you can give me a direction of where my error is. # smb.conf [SHARE] comment = SHARE path = /dados/share read only = no inherit acls = yes valid users = @"TCO\Domain Admins" @"TCO\group01" write list = @"TCO\Domain Admins" @"TCO\group01" # getfacl /dados/share getfacl: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names # file: dados/share # owner: root # group: domain\040users # flags: -s- user::rwx group::rwx g...

...ere 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 it's probably a different > issue. When using JIT compilation, the Pure interpreter works fine with > LLVM 2.3 thru 2.6, and also with early revisions of 2.7svn, but it fails > most of my test suite with current TOT, even though the generated IR > seems to be the same as before...

...f wrote: > Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: >> Try batch compiling with the large code model. (llc -code-model=large) >> If that also causes tail calls to break, then I 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 late...

...tead of the i32 0 then it works (the source code is returning the value () of the type unit in ML, so it conveys no information and can be returned as anything). That makes me think this has been a bug in LLVM rather than in my own code. I'm using LLVM 2.6. Anyone recognise this as a bug in TCO fixed since then or should I try to boil it down and submit it? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

On Wednesday 25 November 2009 19:19:28 Jon Harrop wrote: > I'm using LLVM 2.6. Anyone recognise this as a bug in TCO fixed since then > or should I try to boil it down and submit it? I've come up with the following minimal repro that segfaults on my machine: define fastcc i32 @g({i32, {i32, i32}}) { %1 = extractvalue {i32, {i32, i32}} %0, 0 %2 = extractvalue {i32, {i32, i32}} %0, 1 %3 = ext...

Which of LLVM's backends support TCO? It seems to work on x86 and x64 but what about ARM etc.? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

...as I can tell only PPC and X86 targets are supporting this option. Does anyone actually using it? I'd prefer to just remove it to clean up the implementation if no one has any objections. Don't know whether that is the same, but my Pure compiler sets llvm::PerformTailCallOpt. Pure needs TCO because it doesn't have any built-in looping constructs. In fact, most functional language implementations will rely on TCO. If you can make this work reliably on all supported platforms without needing special flags, that would be welcome. Otherwise please keep the flag. (That said, last time...

...s 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 it's probably a different issue. When using JIT compilation, the Pure interpreter works fine with LLVM 2.3 thru 2.6, and also with early revisions of 2.7svn, but it fails most of my test suite with current TOT, even though the generated IR seems to be the same as before. Have there been a...

...;m not receiving anything. I did the following on CentOS *tcpdump -vvv -nn udp -i esn160 port 514* In another session on the same server: *nc syslog-server -u 514* tcpdump started to show me messages like: *[bad udp cksum 0x3ce9 -> 0xb0f5!] SYSLOG, length: 172* After some research I disabled TCO (ethtool -K ens160 tx off rx off), now tcpdump shows: *[udp sum ok] [|syslog]* And I'm also receiving the logs. Yay! I have the same issue on multiple servers with CentOS versions 7.3.1611, 7.4.1708 & 7.5.1804. I'm having the issue no matter if it is a physical or virtual server (they...

...39;s not tested anywhere, so it probably breaks all the time everywhere. :( I see code trying to support it in: X86 and PowerPC (with `grep -r TailCall lib/Target/`). On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > Which of LLVM's backends support TCO? It seems to work on x86 and x64 but what > about ARM etc.? > > -- > Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. > http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs...

I just upgraded HLVM from LLVM 2.7 to 2.8 and started seeing stack overflows so I think TCO isn't working. Have there been any obvious changes that would cause this? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com