similar to: [LLVMdev] question about tail call elimination pass ..

NOTE: My original post was MIME mangled. So I'm reposting it. Sorry for that. Hi, createTailCallEliminationPass() is able to turn recursive functions into loops when the functions are written in tail recursive form. However, I'm unable to get it to convert mutually recursive functions to run without a growing stack. For example (in pseudo code)- define fact(n,result) if n < 2

Thanks Chris. That works. -Srikumar On 04 Aug 2008, at 12:12 PM, llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: >> Hi, >> >> createTailCallEliminationPass() is able to turn recursive >> functions into loops when the functions are written >> in tail recursive form. However, I'm unable to get it >> to convert mutually recursive functions to run without >> a

Here is an update about moving Polly later. 1. Why does Polly generate incorrect code when we move Polly immediately after the loop rotating pass? It is mainly caused by a wrong polly merge block. When Polly detects a valid loop for Polyhedral transformations, it usually introduces a new basic block "polly.merge_new_and_old" after the original loop exit block. This new basic block

On 09/25/2013 04:55 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Here is an update about moving Polly later. Hi star tan, thanks for your report. > > 1. Why does Polly generate incorrect code when we move Polly immediately after the loop rotating pass? > > It is mainly caused by a wrong polly merge block. When Polly detects a valid loop for Polyhedral transformations, it usually introduces a new basic

On 04/17/2013 09:04 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Tobias Grosser wrote: >> As said before, we could probably add it in between those two passes: >> >> MPM.add(createReassociatePass()); // Reassociate expressions >> + addExtensionsToPM(EP_LoopOptimizerStart, MPM); >> MPM.add(createLoopRotatePass()); // Rotate Loop > > As this is in the middle of other

Hi, polly is run very early and schedules the following passes before it runs: /// @brief Schedule a set of canonicalization passes to prepare for Polly /// /// The set of optimization passes was partially taken/copied from the /// set of default optimization passes in LLVM. It is used to bring the code /// into a canonical form that simplifies the analysis and optimization passes /// of Polly.

Hello all, I have evaluated the compile-time and execution-time performance of Polly canonicalization passes. Details can be referred to http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity. There are four runs: pollyBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so pollyNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly -mllvm -polly-codegen-scev

On 04/17/2013 05:53 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Hi, > > polly is run very early and schedules the following passes before it runs: > > /// @brief Schedule a set of canonicalization passes to prepare for Polly > /// > /// The set of optimization passes was partially taken/copied from the > /// set of default optimization passes in LLVM. It is used to bring the code > ///

Hi Tobias, At 2013-09-19 22:59:25,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/19/2013 04:46 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi Tobias, >> >> >> I am trying to move Polly later. >> >> >> LLVM provides some predefined ExtensionPointTy: >> EP_EarlyAsPossible, >> EP_ModuleOptimizerEarly, >>

Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 04/17/2013 05:53 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > >Hi, > > > >polly is run very early and schedules the following passes before it runs: > > > >/// @brief Schedule a set of canonicalization passes to prepare for Polly > >/// > >/// The set of optimization passes was partially taken/copied from the > >/// set of default

At 2013-09-09 13:07:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> >> At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> >>> On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Also, I wonder if your runs include the dependence analysis. If this is >>> the

Tobias Grosser wrote: > As said before, we could probably add it in between those two passes: > > MPM.add(createReassociatePass()); // Reassociate expressions > + addExtensionsToPM(EP_LoopOptimizerStart, MPM); > MPM.add(createLoopRotatePass()); // Rotate Loop As this is in the middle of other LNO passes, can you please rename s/EP_LoopOptimizerStart/EP_Polly_LNO/ or

Dear R-programmers, I am trying to program a Newton-Raphson in R (yes, i will try GSL, not right now), and it would be a real boon if R had tail call elimination, so that a recursive program has a guarantee not to fail due to stack overflows, given how slow loops in R are. I did look at the documentation, but could not find a reason for it. Regards, Mohit Dayal Researcher Applied Statistics

Hello everybody, On the documentation page for the tailcallelim pass you can read: "This pass transforms functions that are prevented from being tail recursive by an associative expression to use an accumulator variable, thus compiling the typical naive factorial or fib implementation into efficient code” However, I don’t see this behavior when trying to compile this variant of the

I'm not familiar with PNaCl but, FWIW, I'd say the three main advancements the CLR made over the JVM are: . Structs (aka value types). . Reified generics. http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/64031/designandimplementationofgenerics.p df . Tail call elimination. http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/69132/babel01.pdf Structs give you more freedom around memory

On Monday 04 January 2010 03:33:06 Simon Harris wrote: > On 04/01/2010, at 3:01 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > I am certainly interested in tail calls because my HLVM project relies > > upon LLVM's tail call elimination. However, I do not understand what tail > > calls LLVM is not currently eliminating that you plan to eliminate? > > Mutual recursion for a start: >

Hi All, I have installed llvm-gcc4 patch to enable various llvm optimizations at -O1/-O2/-O3. This means instead of $ llvm-gcc4 --emit-llvm foo.c -o foo.bc $ opt foo.bc -o foo_optimized.bc $ llc foo_optimized.bc -o foo.o One can directly use $ llvm-gcc4 -O2 foo.c -o foo.o to get optimized foo.o - Devang + + if (optimize > 0) { + + +

Hi all, The package crossdes could contruct a complete sets of mutually orthogonal latin squares. The construction works for prime powers only. I hope to know whether there is a way to construct a mutually orthogonal Lation square for 10 or other numbers that could not be prime powers. Thanks for any suggestions. Best wishes, Jinsong Zhao

On 04/01/2010, at 3:01 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Monday 04 January 2010 01:12:55 Simon Harris wrote: >> I'm investigating "improving" the TCO facilities in LLVM to provide for >> "hard" tail calls. Specifically, this would involve extending the existing >> implementation to discard the stack frame for the caller before executing >> the callee. I

On 04/17/2013 08:37 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 04/17/2013 05:53 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> polly is run very early and schedules the following passes before it runs: >>> >>> /// @brief Schedule a set of canonicalization passes to prepare for Polly >>> /// >>> /// The set of