similar to: [LLVMdev] RFC: Tail call optimization X86 

On Oct 4, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > > On 4 Oct 2007, at 00:22, Evan Cheng wrote: >>> ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) >>> LLCBETAOPTION := -regalloc=local -fast -tail-call-opt -tail-call- >>> opt- >>> align-stack >> Please remove -regalloc=local -fast. We want to test this patch >> separately. > > just did a test with >

On 4 Oct 2007, at 00:22, Evan Cheng wrote: >> ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) >> LLCBETAOPTION := -regalloc=local -fast -tail-call-opt -tail-call-opt- >> align-stack > Please remove -regalloc=local -fast. We want to test this patch > separately. just did a test with LLCBETAOPTION := -tail-call-opt -tail-call-opt-align-stack this time only SPASS llc-beta fails (comparing with vanilla

On Oct 2, 2007, at 2:27 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > Hi all, > > I changed the code that checks whether a tail call is really > eligible for optimization so that it performs the check/fix in > SelectionDAGISel.cpp:BuildSelectionDAG() as suggest by Evan. Also > eliminated an error that caused the remaining failing test cases in > the test-suite. > > The

Ok. Like I said, I am not too concerned with one or two llcbeta failures. That's expected. Thx, Evan On Oct 5, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer <arnold.schwaighofer at gmail.com > wrote: > Another round ;) Sadly not beer. > > tested against r42630 darwin-x86: > SPASS llc-beta still fails > > thanks for the patience > > On 5 Oct 2007, at 20:58, Evan

There have been some changes in X86RegisterInfo.cpp that make my last patch not merge. Also there was an error in my code concerning how inreg parameters were lowered. the latest version of the patch does not fail the SPASS llc-beta test anymore (darwin-x86). if/when someone has the time to look at it - i would be happy to mail it. i think i should no longer clobber the mailing list with

Another round ;) Sadly not beer. tested against r42630 darwin-x86: SPASS llc-beta still fails thanks for the patience On 5 Oct 2007, at 20:58, Evan Cheng wrote: > Yes please. >> okay then i'll make tailcallopt switch stack adjusting behaviour? the patch for the test suite (when/if it's needed) would be something like: >>>>> --- Makefile.programs (revision

On Oct 9, 2007, at 4:29 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > There have been some changes in X86RegisterInfo.cpp that make my last > patch not merge. Sorry, I know it's a moving target. :-) > > Also there was an error in my code concerning how inreg parameters > were lowered. > > the latest version of the patch does not fail the SPASS llc-beta test > anymore

> Ok, I don't expect everything would just work. But please run at least > SingleSource and MultiSource and let us know what breaks. Once it's > proven to pass a good chunk of the tests it can be checked in but > turned off. This will allow us to test it as llcbeta. > I just ran the test suite in llvm-test with a vanilla copy of the svn tree on darwin-x86. To perform the

Yes please. Evan On Oct 5, 2007, at 11:55 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > > On 5 Oct 2007, at 20:47, Evan Cheng wrote: > >> >> On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: >> >>> >>>> We can set a policy of treating fastcc external functions >>>> as c functions. Then there is no chance of introducing ABI >>>>

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:25 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello , > > To solve this bug locally I have given preference to tail call > optimization over local function related optimization in IPRA. I have added > following method to achieve this: > >

Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:25 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello , >>> >>> To solve

Hi all, I changed the code that checks whether a tail call is really eligible for optimization so that it performs the check/fix in SelectionDAGISel.cpp:BuildSelectionDAG() as suggest by Evan. Also eliminated an error that caused the remaining failing test cases in the test-suite. The results look very nice (on darwin x86, r42486). The same number (46) of failing test cases on patched

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:25 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello , > > To solve this bug locally I have given preference to tail call optimization over local function related optimization in IPRA. I have added following method to achieve this: > > bool isEligibleForTailCallOptimization(Function *F) { > CallingConv::ID CC =

Hello , To solve this bug locally I have given preference to tail call optimization over local function related optimization in IPRA. I have added following method to achieve this: bool isEligibleForTailCallOptimization(Function *F) { CallingConv::ID CC = F->getCallingConv(); if (CC == CallingConv::Fast || CC == CallingConv::GHC || CC == CallingConv::HiPE) return true; return false;

On Sep 11, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> >> Date: 11 September 2007 19:26:39 GMT+02:00 >> To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Tail call optimization X86 >> Reply-To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev

Hi all, building current llvm-gcc-4.0 TOT(Revision: 42128) with current llvm (Revision: 42128) on 8.10.1 Darwin (x86) fails with the following message. Is that a just a temporary inconsistency or should i file a bug? /Users/arnold/Desktop/testing/vanilla-gcc-4.0/obj/gcc/xgcc -B/Users/ arnold/Desktop/testing/vanilla-gcc-4.0/obj/gcc/ -B/Users/arnold/

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Evan Cheng wrote: >> the stack adjustment only fastcc was not one of them. Now that fastcc >> can cause tail call optimization i had to change the convention from >> caller pops arguments to callee pops arguments in order to allow tail >> call optimization in a general way. > > Hmmm. Ok. So this is due to X86CallingConv.td changes? Unfortunately

On Sep 19, 2007, at 3:22 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > Hi all, > building current llvm-gcc-4.0 TOT(Revision: 42128) with current llvm > (Revision: 42128) on 8.10.1 Darwin (x86) fails with the following > message. Is that a just a temporary inconsistency or should i file a > bug? I think I broke this with long double. I'll get it fixed shortly. >

I now get: /Users/arnold/Desktop/testing/vanilla-gcc-4.0/obj/gcc/xgcc -B/Users/ arnold/Desktop/testing/vanilla-gcc-4.0/obj/gcc/ -B/Users/arnold/ Desktop/testing/vanilla-gcc-4.0/obj/../install/i686-apple-darwin8/ bin/ -B/Users/arnold/Desktop/testing/vanilla-gcc-4.0/obj/../install/ i686-apple-darwin8/lib/ -isystem /Users/arnold/Desktop/testing/

Begin forwarded message: > From: Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> > Date: 11 September 2007 19:26:39 GMT+02:00 > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Tail call optimization X86 > Reply-To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > > Hi Arnold, > > Thanks for the patch. Some questions