similar to: [LLVMdev] calling conventions and inlining

On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 02:52 +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Put simply, the inliner is too greedy and nice little leaf functions > suddenly run out of CPU registers. Even gcc 3.4 with -funit-at-a-time > started inlining too much, but at least I can tell gcc where to stop. > This whole noinline issue may be somewhat X86 specific, though. This is where a register allocator

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Actually I feel that the current state of the art of inlining is where > register allocation has been about 10 years ago. It's pretty fine for most > things, but back then I remember writing code like "register const char *p > __asm__("%esi");" where just adding the explicit __asm__ boosted performance

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> >>> As I've just seen that there are some things going on w.r.t the long >>> needed implementation of calling conventions, may I also ask if it's >>> possible to address inlining at the same moment (i.e. attributes

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > As I've just seen that there are some things going on w.r.t the long needed > implementation of calling conventions, may I also ask if it's possible to > address inlining at the same moment (i.e. attributes always_inline and > noinline, but maybe LLVM wants a finer grained level here) ? They really are different issues.

There is one case where inlining/not-inlining affects correctness. A function which uses alloca() will behave differently in the two cases. You can argue one shouldn't write code like this, but it is legal. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > >> I see that you are objecting explicit inline control. >> >> The main problem is

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > I see that you are objecting explicit inline control. > > The main problem is that inlining is absolutely crucial for some > "modern" programming styles. E.g. we use a huge collection of small C++ > template classes and template metaclasses, most of which have very > trivial and limited functionality (think of it

Are you suggesting that we have "always_inline" and "never_inline" keywoards that can be attributed to functions? If so, why do you want this level of control? What's wrong with the current inlining pass? Reid. On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 20:34 +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > As I've just seen that there are some things going on w.r.t the long > needed

On Thursday 10 February 2005 21:47, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > In order to get more familiar with the llvm sources I've recently > decided to try to add support for the always_inline and noline function > attributes. I believe it is better to let the compiler decide when or not to inline a function. Most of the times a developer goes overboard with inlining and ends up with a

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> I'm currently working with an experimental analysis pass that checks for >> calls to memory allocation functions; inlining and dead code elimination >> might make the pass more stable, but we don't want to inline the calls to >> the memory allocation functions until after our analysis pass is finished. >

June Status Update ------------------ Hi everyone, Since the last status update, we've had a lot of progress on various fronts. In particular, we passed the 15,000th commit to the llvm-commits list, we have some great new features and documentation, new people using LLVM, and (strangely enough) the MachineBasicBlock class seems to have received a lot of love. At this point, I'm

Hi all, as suggested on the mailing list I have converted the updated LZO code into git, so please pull my "lzo-update" branch from git://github.com/markus-oberhumer/linux.git lzo-update You can browse the branch at https://github.com/markus-oberhumer/linux/compare/lzo-update I''d ask some official kernel maintainer for review and to push this into linux-next so that it

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Still, my approach makes the inline hint a first-class property of an LLVM > function just like the calling convention, including preserving full source > code information. Preserving full source code information isn't a goal of LLVM, at least if you don't count debug information. :) > Most of the patch is actually

Hi all LLVMers! It's time for another dose of LLVM status update. Since 1.1, we've fixed 34 new LLVM bugs (including a lot of quality-of-implementation bugs), sped up the optimizer, and even implemented some new features. Here are the highlights: 1. Misha reorganized the sparc backend to be a bit more modular and cleaned up the asmwriter. 2. The JIT now lazily initializes global

Markus, We are in the process of trying to make this happen. It's a matter of getting all the duckings lined up in a row. We finally resigned ourselves to the fact that we can't cvs/svn and maintain the sanity of FSF branches, Apple branches and LLVM branches. So, over the next few working days we are going to set up a nightly cron script to checkout the latest and greatest

Hello! I try to maintain a couple off old Openwrt based routers. The routers run openwrt whiterussian, so it quite outdated. But it is a little dangerous to update a remote machine from whiterussian to kamikaze or backfire, this may be usefull for others. I used the openwrt whiterussian 0.9 sdk and the attached Makefile to compile all tinc versions till 1.0.11. Since 1.0.11 the compile process

Hi Markus, Thanks for this interesting patch! It looks okay to me, but our C/C++ Front End guru is away right now. I would rather defer to him on this patch. He might not get to it until next week so I just wanted to let you know that there might be a bit of a delay before this patch hits mainline. I've already committed your configure changes. Reid. On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 21:42, Markus

Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Hello folks, > > with the small patch attached below the whole llvm toolchain (llvm & llvm-gcc) > will compile and run under AMD64 Linux in native 64-bit LP64 mode. > > This means that compilation, bytecode management and CWriter output all work > as expected. Of course there is no JIT, and the bytecode interpreter is still > very

In case anyone's interested, I followed up in the linux-nfs mailing list: https://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=156887818618861&w=2 Thanks, Alkis On 9/15/19 10:51 AM, Alkis Georgopoulos wrote: > I think I got it. > > Both nfsmount and `mount -t nfs` now default to rsize/wsize = 1 MB. > By lowering this to 32K, all issues are gone, even with the default > timeo=7. And

News flash: LLVM 1.2 is now available! -------------------------------------- LLVM 1.2 is the result of ~3 months of hard work by many people in the LLVM community. It contains a bunch of new features, produces substantially better code, and has many bug fixes over the 1.1 release. A detailed list of new and improved features are included in the 1.2 release notes:

News flash: LLVM 1.2 is now available! -------------------------------------- LLVM 1.2 is the result of ~3 months of hard work by many people in the LLVM community. It contains a bunch of new features, produces substantially better code, and has many bug fixes over the 1.1 release. A detailed list of new and improved features are included in the 1.2 release notes: