similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm hangs: fibonacci numbers, recursive

Elmar, As Chris mentioned below, please don't contact individual developers, but email llvmdev instead. For your specific question, which you asked on March 3rd, there was a response posted the same day -- did you see it? If you visit the link you provided below, at the bottom of the page is the "Next message" link which will show you the response:

Hello, I'm trying to get to grips with the c interface of llvm intending to eventually develop a front end for Purebasic Though I've hit the wall already writing an iterative Fibonacci function. While I think the module dump looks ok it doesn't work for any input > 2 the function returns 2, the loop only executes once Hopefully someone can see what the problem is from the

Haskell is the prototypical lazy evaluation language. One can compute a Fibonacci sequence by the Haaskell equivalent of the following R code. > fibs <- c(0, 1, rep(0, 8)) > fibs[3:10] <- fibs + fibs[-1] This works as follows. fibs = 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 fibs = 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 When one adds fibs to fibs[-1], one is effectively adding diagonally: fibs[3] <-

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible > optimizations are really invoked. > > Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 > on my Athlon XP 1500. Cool! Hey Valery, before we add this to the CVS repo, can you take a look at some of the changes I made to your HowToUseJIT example and

Valery, That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this "brilliant" :) example in the cvs repository? I'd be happy to put it in. Reid. Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > Hi LLVMers, > > the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible > optimizations are really invoked. > > Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 >

Here is a complete 104-line native code compiler for a tiny subset of OCaml that is expressive enough to compile an external Fibonacci program: type expr = | Int of int | Var of string | BinOp of [ `Add | `Sub | `Leq ] * expr * expr | If of expr * expr * expr | Apply of expr * expr type defn = | LetRec of string * string * expr open Camlp4.PreCast;; let expr = Gram.Entry.mk

On second thought, the makefiles don't (easily) allow this do they? You can only build one program per directory. Were you suggesting that you wanted me to move the entire directories under a "small examples" directory? Reid. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > >>That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > On second thought, the makefiles don't (easily) allow this do they? You can > only build one program per directory. Were you suggesting that you wanted me to > move the entire directories under a "small examples" directory? You're right. The simples way to do this would be to have: projects/ SmallExamples/

Hi, I'm not sure if this is a libclang, llvm::cl or clang-interpreter issue so I'll try posting here for a response. I am using libclang as a frontend to the LLVM JIT (3.3 release). I started from the clang-interpreter example and have everything working (given a C/C++ source file I can have it JIT'd to memory and executed) for a single run. When I try to compile a second source

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this "brilliant" :) example in the cvs > repository? I'd be happy to put it in. Here's an idea: how about we take the ModuleMaker, Valery's previous example, and this one and put them all in one "small examples" project? -Chris > Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > >

Here's my translation of the Fibonacci example into OCaml: open Printf open Llvm let build_fib m = let fibf = define_function "fib" (function_type i32_type [| i32_type |]) m in let bb = builder_at_end (entry_block fibf) in let one = const_int i32_type 1 and two = const_int i32_type 2 in let argx = param fibf 0 in set_value_name "AnArg" argx; let

On Nov 26, 2007, at 00:47, Jon Harrop wrote: > Here is a complete 104-line native code compiler for a tiny subset > of OCaml that is expressive enough to compile an external Fibonacci > program: > > [...] > > I was kind of hoping that function pointers would just magically > work, so this: > > do (if 1 <= 2 then fib else fib) 40 > > would run, but

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

Hello, In lib/Analysis/InlineCost.cpp, inlining of recursive functions is disabled because it is like loop unrolling. But - I could not find a way to have loop unrolling do the job - In the context of functionnal languages (I am implementing one), inlining small recursive functions is often a great gain My question is what is the cleanest and simplest way to inline small recursive functions ?

When I compile my C fibonacci example fib.c with 'clang -O3 -c -emit-llvm -o fib-clang.bc fib.c&& llvm-dis fib-clang.bc' I get fib-clang.ll that has some degree of inlining in it. But when I get an equivalent to fib.c file fib.ll and run it through opt with the command 'llvm-as fib.ll&& opt -O3 fib.bc -o fib-opt.bc&& llvm-dis fib-opt.bc' resulting

Hi LLVMers, the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible optimizations are really invoked. Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 on my Athlon XP 1500. Nice. P.S. guys, no fears, I don't plan to flood the cvs repository with my "brilliant" examples ;) --- Valery A.Khamenya -------------- next part -------------- An

Hi! I am trying to work out the code to get a Fibonacci sequence, using the while() loop and only one variable. And I can't figure it out. Fibonacci<-c(1,1) while (max(Fibonacci)<500){ Fibonacci<-c(Fibonacci, (max(Fibonacci) + ?(Fibanacci))) } How can I tell R to take the value one before the max value? (Without defining another variable) (Probably super easy... I am a

I run the same simple Fibonacci computing code in JIT and as a native executable. I see that with argument 45 JIT runs for 11.3sec and executable runs for 7.5sec. Why there is such difference? Yuri -------- fib.ll -------- ; ModuleID = 'all.bc' @.str = private constant [12 x i8] c"fib(%i)=%i\0A\00", align 1 ; <[12 x i8]*> [#uses=1] define i32 @fib(i32 %AnArg) {

Hi Valery, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: >>To me this appears more as an algorithmic design issue, this function >>could be rewritten in "continuation passing style", and each >>continuation could be distributed by a load-balancing strategy to the >>computers sharing CPU resources. Using mechanisms such as "futures" (as >>in Mozart) allows to do

Hi all, (thanks to Reid, who gave nice advice) the fibonacci function code works now. Please find attached file. but... the performance is adequate, say, for byte-code interpretation mode and not for optimized JITing. fibonacci function of 35 from attached file is more then 100 times slower then the following code compiled with "gcc -O2" : ----------- #include <iostream> int