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

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 then result else fact(n-1,result *n) is converted into a loop correctly. However

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

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

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

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: >

I ran into the same issue some time back and just made all functions with ExternalLinkage, which forced the inliner to not delete any functions and I got my code to run. In my interpreter, for every top level expression, I create a wrapper function that takes no arguments and then do EE->runFunction (just like in the tutorial). As the interaction proceeds, these wrapper functions remain in

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

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

Hi Adarsh, On 11/02/12 09:47, Adarsh Konchady wrote: > My pass in LLVM generates an IR like this > %5 = icmp eq i32 %4, 0 > %7 = or i1 %5, %5 > ;. . . > Since the 'or' instruction is actually not needed(dead code), I replaced all > occurences of %7 with %5. > Now, the 'or' instruction should get deleted. How can I call Dead Code > Elimination pass

Good Afternoon. I am a Computer Science undergraduate student in Brazil and as completion of course work, I am developing an register allocator, using the infrastructure of the LLVM. To accomplish this task, I have based my implementation in allocators already implemented in LLVM. But a question came to me while I was researching in books and articles of compiler theory and own documentation of

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) { + + +

My pass in LLVM generates an IR like this %5 = icmp eq i32 %4, 0 %7 = or i1 %5, %5 ;. . . Since the 'or' instruction is actually not needed(dead code), I replaced all occurences of %7 with %5. Now, the 'or' instruction should get deleted. How can I call Dead Code Elimination pass of LLVM from my pass or is there any method to remove that 'or' instruction? Thank you.

Can you give an example of a case that is missed today but catched by your pass? > On Mar 23, 2016, at 6:43 AM, David Callahan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a new variant of Aggressive Dead Code Elimination that also removes dead branching. It is designed to minimize the cost of control-dependence analysis in the common case where

Yeah, that was gonna be my question. If so, my view is we should just bite the bullet and start threading post dominance through the compiler. (assuming anyone wants to help. I'm tackling the memoryssa updating stuff with george ATM). On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > [+Danny] > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From:

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 Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > 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

David Callahan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Hi, > > I have a new variant of Aggressive Dead Code Elimination that also > removes dead branching. It is designed to minimize the cost of > control-dependence analysis in the common case where almost the entire > program is live. It also can optionally remove dead but > may-be-infinite loops. > >

[+Danny] ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Justin Bogner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "David Callahan via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 12:36:50 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: New aggressive dead code elimination pass > > David Callahan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

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