similar to: [LLVMdev] opt -std-compile-opts

Hello. > Hi > > I am using the llvm 1.9 and contrary to the help page there is no option: > -std-compile-opts Help page is for 2.0cvs. If you're using 1.9 you should use http://llvm.org/releases/1.9/docs/ > for the command "opt". It would be nice if s.o. could list the passes which > are normally done for compilation/optimization. You can see full set of

Is "opt" expected to honour tail calls? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > Is "opt" expected to honour tail calls? I don't believe tail call elimination is on by default. Did you try including the "-tailcallelim" option?

Resent, to the list this time instead of David (sorry for the duplicate)... On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:57 PM, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> wrote: > 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'

On Nov 13, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > I'll try removing the noalias and seeing if that fixes it. If so, I'll file a > bug report. Which part of LLVM would this be a bug in if things like noalias > and noreturn inhibit TCO when they shouldn't? CodeGen. I looked at noalias, and it was indeed a bug. This is now fixed on trunk in r88672. Noreturn is a

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

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>

Let's say I have 2 bytecode files, X.bc and Y.bc that I want to combine into Z.bc. Which of the following command sequences will produce more optimized code? Sequence 1: llvm-link -o tmp.bc X.bc Y.bc opt -std-compile-opts -o Z.bc tmp.bc Sequence 2: llvm-ld -O5 -o Z.bc X.bc Y.bc Without looking at details it seems like sequence 2 should produce the most optimized code. As a follow

On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: >> Point 4 is the one that caused me trouble for some time. >> Unfortunately >> it causes a bad interaction with the optimiser, specifically the >> 'simplifycfg' pass. What seems to happen is that since the function >> you are calling is marked with 'noreturn', the simplifycfg pass will >> then

On Friday 13 November 2009 16:26:01 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > >> Point 4 is the one that caused me trouble for some time. > >> Unfortunately > >> it causes a bad interaction with the optimiser, specifically the > >> 'simplifycfg' pass. What seems to happen is that since the function > >> you are

On Friday 13 November 2009 04:57:43 David Terei wrote: > 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

Hi guys, I''m very new to the RoR. So please be kind to me.. I''m having problems with ferret installation in rubygems. I''m on: ruby 1.9.1p429 (2010-07-02 revision 28523) [i386-mingw32] Rails 2.3.8 and i''m running windows 7 x64 When i enter ''gem install ferret --version 0.11.6'', it returns this error: Building native extensions. This could

hi my script to backup my home folder BDIR=/home/$USER EXCLUDE=exclude.txt OPTS="-a -r -v -p -t --del --exclude-from=$EXCLUDE --progress" BACKUPDIR=/media/dvdrecorder rsync $OPTS $BDIR $BACKUPDIR my exclude file + .kde/ + .kde/share/ + .kde/share/apps/ + .kde/share/apps/kmail/*** + .kde/share/apps/kwallet/*** + .kde/share/apps/konqueror/*** + .kde/share/apps/kabc/*** - .** when i

Hello, I try to use Microchips MPLAB IDE 7.22 with wine 0.9.3 in contrary to the AppDB it doesn't work, it hangs during the first splash screen. When I try it with WINEDEBUG=warn+all the last message I get is: warn:gdi:GDI_GetObjPtr Invalid handle 0x62c I already registered all the .dlls as advised in the AppDB and also installed a gdi32.dll. Does anybody has an idea? Thanks, Dirk

Greetings list, It's been a while since I've been able to focus on asterisk packaging but this weekend I took some time to audit and recompile packages for CentOS 4.2. You can find them here. ftp://ftp.linuxsys.com/ftp/pub/releases/CentOS-4.0 You have your choice of 1.2.1 or 1.0.10 releases. If you need zaptel modules then install this kernel as well:

Hi Thomas, As per your question "Out of curiosity do any of those support anything else than MP3?" - - > answer is yes. See attached link an overview of 6 hardware audio encoders (Link to pmg file via WeTransfer http://we.tl/w0H6HJsxLd ). All offer various output formats, not all matching ICECAST input requirements. Not all offer an authentication on mount level. Price

Hi Martin, When I attended the LinuxWorld Expo in NYC back in January, I chatted with some folks at the AMD booth, as well as guys from Penguin Computing (where we bought our Opteron box). I was told that the Operton has this somewhat strange setup that the memory is controlled by one CPU. The net effect of this being that when both CPUs are running, one might only be running at around 90%

This requires changing the generator so it can handle passing optional arguments all thr way through to the daemon, changing the protocol (see previous patch set), and implementing the new mkfs-opts call. At the moment there is just an optional blocksize argument, thus mimicking what you can already do with 'mkfs-b'. But this change will allow us in future to encode much of the rest of

Hi I ran across the following when running spec on an old merb app. $ cat spec/spec.opts $ spec spec/models/topic_spec.rb Options written to spec/spec.opts. You can now use these options with: spec --options spec/spec.opts $ cat spec/spec.opts spec/models/topic_spec.rb $ spec spec/models/topic_spec.rb Options written to spec/spec.opts. You can now use these options with: spec --options

I am having an issue on my integration server currently. When I run rake spec locally my specs run and all is good but when I run rake spec in on my integration box I get the following output Options written to spec/spec.opts. You can now use these options with: spec --options spec/spec.opts When I run spec --options spec.opts I get the same message. script/spec and others all do the same , if I