similar to: [LLVMdev] Improving performance with optimization passes

On Thursday 19 February 2009 19:00:14 Jon Harrop wrote: > I'm toying with benchmarks on my HLVM and am unable to get any performance > improvement from optimization passes... I just disassembled some of the IR before and after optimization. This example function squares a complex number: let zsqr(r, i) = (r*r - i*i, 2*r*i) My compiler is generating: define fastcc i32 @zsqr({

> > On Thursday 19 February 2009 19:00:14 Jon Harrop wrote: >> I'm toying with benchmarks on my HLVM and am unable to get any >> performance >> improvement from optimization passes... > > I just disassembled some of the IR before and after optimization. > This example > function squares a complex number: Something is definitely wrong with the way

Hi Jon, On 2009-02-19, at 14:00, Jon Harrop wrote: > I'm toying with benchmarks on my HLVM and am unable to get any > performance improvement from optimization passes. I simply copied > the use of PassManager from the Kaleidoscope tutorial: > > Any idea what I might be doing wrong? Has anyone else got this > functionality giving performance boosts from OCaml?

On Thursday 19 February 2009 19:32:14 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On 2009-02-19, at 14:00, Jon Harrop wrote: > > I'm toying with benchmarks on my HLVM and am unable to get any > > performance improvement from optimization passes. I simply copied > > the use of PassManager from the Kaleidoscope tutorial: > > > > Any idea what I might be doing

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

What happened to the HLVM project? I understand it was intended to be a high-level VM specifically for dynamic languages and this post indicates that it was integrated into the LLVM project last year: http://www.nabble.com/NEWS:-HLVM-merges-with-LLVM-td9627113.html But I cannot find any code in LLVM that looks like it would have come from HLVM. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy

>On Sunday 14 June 2009 14:09:33 Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Florian Weimer<fw at deneb.enyo.de> wrote: >> > Is this really a problem for MLton? I think you only get less precise >> > alias analysis, and that's it. >> >> Correct. However, I want a fair comparison between LLVM performance >> and the native x86

Jon Harrop wrote: > The simplest way is surely to reuse HLVM because it provides everything you > need and is even written in the right language! ;-) Is there a web page with HLVM docs? There's a README.txt in the subversion repository: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/hlvm/trunk/README.txt which says: HLVM comes with documentation in HTML format. These are provided in

On Tuesday 16 June 2009 15:44:04 Aaron Gray wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > >Even if this puts LLVM at an unfair disadvantage, I think you will find > >that > >LLVM will thrash MLton's current x86 backend anyway. > > > >I did some benchmarking on HLVM and found that it was often several times > >faster than OCaml when the GC is not the bottleneck: > >

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

As I understand it, first-class structs will allow structs to be passed as function arguments and returned as results (i.e. multiple return values) instead of passing pointers to structs. However, the GEP instruction only handles pointer types. So I do not understand how you will be able to extract the fields of a struct when it is received as a value type. Will the GEP instruction be altered

On Thursday 18 June 2009 12:28:57 Cory Nelson wrote: > I'm also curious what language uses this and why it is useful :) HLVM is intended to be a general-purpose VM rather than a particular language. > Also, things like this would make lock-free algorithms difficult or > impossible. True. Perhaps that is a good argument for providing both kinds. However, nulls are certainly more

Someone is trying to work on HLVM with me but they're hitting a problem that we have not been able to resolve. Specifically, GCC seems to be performing some kind of sanity check for "stack smashing" and is calling abort because it is unhappy with something that the code is doing. However, I am not sure what and cannot reproduce the problem. The stack trace they have given me is:

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 16 February 2010 03:51:00 Jianzhou Zhao wrote: >> Does anyone know if there is any realistic project using LLVM-OCaml >> Bindings? > > I've written a VM in OCaml built upon LLVM using LLVM's OCaml bindings: > >  http://www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/hlvm/ > > There

I just upgraded HLVM from LLVM 2.7 to 2.8 and started seeing stack overflows so I think TCO isn't working. Have there been any obvious changes that would cause this? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com

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 Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: (...) > But I cannot find any code in LLVM that looks like it would have come from > HLVM. Don't know about the status of the project, but the code seems to be here: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/ (in directory "hlvm") Regards, Kevin André

My compiler is generating a bunch of code including the following line: %57 = call fastcc i32 @aux(%1* %0, %1 %1, %1 %46, i32 0, %4 %2) ; <i32> [#uses=1] ret i32 %57 The program works fine as long as this isn't a tail call. If I compile via a .ll and insert "tail" by hand, the program segfaults. However, if I make it a tail call and return an undef i8* or void instead

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: >

On Monday 31 March 2008 09:56:45 Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > The full series of the ocaml tutorial is done! You can find it here: > > http://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/ > > Please let me know if you have any comments, bugs, suggestions, and > etc. I'll send a mail to the ocaml mailing list tomorrow to drum up > some interest from the other ocaml users. I think your new OCaml