Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Speeding up llc"
2009 Nov 20
1
[LLVMdev] llc barfing
On Friday 20 November 2009 02:54:14 Dan Gohman wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > Are these barfs due to bugs in my generated code or is this parts of LLVM
> > not honoring tail calls?
>
> It was a bug in LLVM, with emitting tail calls at -O0. It's now
> fixed, as of r89444.
Awesome, thanks. What about this one where the simple register
2009 Nov 20
2
[LLVMdev] llc barfing
I was playing with optimization switches to llc to see how fast I could get it
to compile but it keeps barfing. Tinkering indicates that llc barfs
particularly when -tailcallopt is given in combination with other flags. For
example, without -tailcallopt works in a couple of ways:
$ llc -O0 -f aout.bc -o aout.s
$ llc -O0 --regalloc=local -f aout.bc -o aout.s
But fails with -tailcallopt with
2009 Jan 31
1
[LLVMdev] -msse3 can degrade performance
On Saturday 31 January 2009 03:42:04 Eli Friedman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> > I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst
> > tweaking the command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3
> > flag
>
> The -msse3 flag? Does the -msse2 flag have a similar effect?
Yes:
$
2009 Feb 05
4
[LLVMdev] IR in XML
Is there a tool to spit LLVM's IR out in a more machine-friendly syntax like
XML?
--
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
2010 Feb 06
0
[LLVMdev] Removing -tailcallopt?
On Saturday 06 February 2010 02:42:47 Evan Cheng wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote:
> >> Does anyone actually using it?
> >
> > Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly.
>
> Ok, that's all I need to know.
>
> >> I'd prefer to just remove it to
2009 Nov 28
2
[LLVMdev] JVM Backend
> How do you handle tail calls and value types?
I haven't worried too much about optimisation yet, so it doesn't do
anything special for tail calls (although neither does the java
compiler). LLVM types are translated to their equivalent java
primitive type (or currently it raises an assertion if there is no
equivalent type).
--
David Roberts
http://da.vidr.cc/
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009
2007 Dec 12
2
[LLVMdev] ocaml binding question
On Monday 10 December 2007 23:52, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
> On 2007-12-10, at 18:28, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > Incidentally, should more OCaml stuff beyond the bindings be part of
> > LLVM or would it be better to fork them into a separate project
>
> Can you be more specific than "stuff"?
I'm thinking of a library that compiles an AST represented by an OCaml data
2008 Feb 14
2
[LLVMdev] Higher-level OCaml bindings
On Thursday 14 February 2008 16:33:25 Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Jon Harrop wrote:
> > Does CLang use a suitable intermediate representation for this to be
> > possible?
>
> The higher level IR that clang uses is basically a C AST. This interface
> is under constant flux though. If you wanted to do this, it would be
> very reasonable to just cons up
2010 Feb 06
2
[LLVMdev] Removing -tailcallopt?
On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote:
> On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote:
>> Does anyone actually using it?
>
> Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly.
Ok, that's all I need to know.
>
>> I'd prefer to just remove it to clean up the implementation if no one has
>> any objections.
>
> Are you
2009 Jan 04
3
[LLVMdev] HLVM
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
2010 Feb 17
1
[LLVMdev] LLVM-OCaml Bindings Tutorial (2.6-2.7)
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
2009 Apr 05
1
[LLVMdev] How the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure Works
I've experienced GCC induced eyeball-clawing....
Not pretty!
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 05 April 2009 06:33:00 Rajika Kumarasiri wrote:
> > FYI,
> > http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1215438
> >
> > -Rajika
>
> LOL:
>
> "In contrast, every time I look at the GCC
2009 Feb 01
7
[LLVMdev] GEPping GEPs and first-class structs
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
2008 Dec 30
2
[LLVMdev] Data structures and algorithms in IL
Has anyone begun collating data structures and algorithms written in LLVM's
IL? I am just considering how to implement my first GC and it would help
enormously if I could just pull in a concurrent queue written in IL, for
example.
--
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
2009 Jun 21
2
[LLVMdev] SSE examples
Does anyone have any LLVM IR examples implementing things using the
instructions for SSE, like complex arithmetic or 3D vector-matrix stuff?
I'd like to have HLVM use them "under the hood" for some things but I cannot
see all of the operations that I was expecting (e.g. dot product) and am not
sure what works when (e.g. "Not all targets support all types however.").
--
2009 Jan 31
0
[LLVMdev] Performance vs other VMs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Harrop" <jon at ffconsultancy.com>
To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 6:56 AM
Subject: [LLVMdev] Performance vs other VMs
>
> The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark
> the
> performance of various VMs using the SciMark2
2009 Dec 07
3
[LLVMdev] Documentation of malloc/free
On Monday 07 December 2009 17:55:44 Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Garrison Venn wrote:
> > So I gather this means that malloc was removed from the IR because
> > there are platforms that don't have non-stack allocation semantics?
>
> No, it was removed because it wasn't necessary, and the malloc
> 'instruction' didn't support 64-bit
2009 Jun 22
0
[LLVMdev] SSE examples
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Harrop" <jon at ffconsultancy.com>
To: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:51 PM
Subject: [LLVMdev] SSE examples
>
> Does anyone have any LLVM IR examples implementing things using the
> instructions for SSE, like complex arithmetic or 3D vector-matrix stuff?
>
I don't have any examples...
>
2009 Jun 22
2
[LLVMdev] SSE examples
On Monday 22 June 2009 16:37:41 BGB wrote:
> as for what targets support which operations, in the case of SSE, go check
> the Intel and AMD64 docs.
I was assuming that LLVM's implementations were incomplete. Are they now
complete? So anything that a CPU can do and LLVM has bindings for is
implemented?
--
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
2009 Jun 16
2
[LLVMdev] Some understanding of LLVM vs gCC vs Intel C++ Compilers
Are there any papers in the works which benchmark some specification suite
of C programs on GCC, LLVM-GCC, and CLANG?
The only stuff I have seen so far are some bar charts in a few LLVM
presentations, would be nice to have something a little more comprehensive.
Cheers,
Granville
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 June 2009