similar to: [LLVMdev] how to turn off the tail optimization

Hi Wei, > It seems to me that LLVM is merging/in-lining the tail function to its > caller. > I am wondering if there is a flag that I can use to turn off this > optimization? do you want to turn off all inlining, or only inlining of calls that are tail calls? Why do you want to turn it off? Ciao, Duncan.

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de <mailto:matze at braunis.de>> wrote: > >> >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com <mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com

Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 28, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > > >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote:

I have tried out the following code which examines each call site in a module for tail call and do not perform optimization in such case: On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < >

Hello, Could anyone kindly explain to me why the 'g()' in the following function cannot have tail call optimization? > void f(int* x); > void g(); > void h(int v) { > f(&v); > g(); > } > A while ago I was taught that tail call optimization cannot apply if local variables needs to be kept alive, but 'g()' doesn't seem to require anything to be

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Mahadevan R <mdevan.foobar at gmail.com> wrote: > int sum(int n) > { > return n + sum(n-1); > } > > it generates this: > > define i32 @sum(i32 %n) nounwind { > entry: > %tmp2 = add i32 %n, -1 ; <i32> [#uses=1] > %tmp3 = tail call i32 @sum( i32 %tmp2 ) nounwind ; <i32>

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de

Hi, While playing around on the LLVM, I tried this code: int sum(int n) { if (n == 0) return 0; else return n + sum(n-1); } and this is what "llvm-gcc -O2" gave me: define i32 @sum(i32 %n) nounwind { entry: %tmp215 = icmp eq i32 %n, 0 ; <i1> [#uses=1] br i1 %tmp215, label %bb10, label %tailrecurse.bb10_crit_edge tailrecurse.bb10_crit_edge: ; preds =

compiling: void f(void); void g(void) { f(); } With GCC 4.0.3 (-Os) produces the code pushl %ebp movl %esp, %ebp popl %ebp jmp f With llvm-gcc the result is subl $4, %esp call f addl $4, %esp ret Note that llvm-gcc automatically removes the frame pointer, but doesn't use a tail call as GCC does. LLVM has

On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > >> We can set a policy of treating fastcc external functions >> as c functions. Then there is no chance of introducing ABI >> incompatibility. > this means limiting tail call opt to protected/invisible functions > within a module? > a little limiting i think. It makes sense to be extra careful at this point.

r287955 seems like it might be related. -- Sean Silva On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > This sounds buggy to me. What pass is doing this? > > -- Sean Silva > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 5:39 AM, Carlo Kok via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> I've got some calls like: >>

On 10/30/13 7:09 PM, Philip Reames wrote: > David, Quentin - Thanks for the feedback. Responses inline. > > On 10/30/13 11:21 AM, David Blaikie wrote: >> Actually CCing Eric. >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Quentin Colombet >> <qcolombet at apple.com <mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote: >> >> Philip, >>

Hello, Is tail call optimization performed if the ret instruction does not actually follow the tail call? Not according to the documentation, but in examples it seems to work. For example, consider the following definition of Ackerman's function in ML (it has two tail calls): let rec ack x y = if x <= 0 then y + 1 else if y <= 0 then ack (x - 1) 1 else ack (x - 1) (ack x (y -

On 5 Oct 2007, at 20:47, Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > >> >>> We can set a policy of treating fastcc external functions >>> as c functions. Then there is no chance of introducing ABI >>> incompatibility. >> this means limiting tail call opt to protected/invisible functions >> within a module?

On 2007-10-05, at 13:56, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > On 5 Oct 2007, at 19:41, Evan Cheng wrote: > >> In theory, any function can be marked fastcc. But llvm-gcc c / c++ >> frontend does *not* mark any external functions fastcc. Also, the >> optimizer only changes the calling convention of internal >> functions to fastcc. > > well i hope llvm-gcc won't

I've got some calls like: musttail call void bitcast (i32 (i32, i8*, %Type*)* @MyMethod to void (i32, i8*)*)(i32 %0, i8* %1) ret void Into something like: %8 = tail call i32 @MyMethod(i32 %0, i8* %1, %Type* null) ret void I realize I'm losing a parameter there, but this is an interface jump trick I use and relies on the end code being a 'jmp' (x86). I realize i can probably

On 12 Oct 2007, at 07:07, Evan Cheng wrote: >>In order to test the tail call optimization i created quite a few >>.ll files and added them to the SingleSource directory in the >>test-suite. For example >>llvm-test/SingleSource/Tailcall/tailcall1-2.ll. >Shouldn't these be dejagnu tests instead? There is one test in dejagnu that tests whether tail call optimization

Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:25 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello , >>> >>> To solve

On 5 Oct 2007, at 19:41, Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:42 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > >> Hi Evan, >> I incoporated the changes you request but to the following i have got >> a question: >> >>> Also, moving the option >>> there will allow us to change fastcc ABI (callee popping arguments) >>> only when this option is on.