similar to: [LLVMdev] Small problem with the tail call elimination pass

> I see more precisely what you mean, but I don't think it is that > straightforward to generalise the benefits multiple CPU on single host > programming to multiple CPU at multiple hosts. I don't think that both > cases involve the same techniques. you are right, just think of shared memory. > For example, in "single host" configuration you get a very low

Hello again Valery, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > All benefits, what one could obtain from "LLVM supporting multiple CPU > at single host", one might obtaine from "LLVM supporting multiple CPU > at multiple hosts". Isn't that logical? I see more precisely what you mean, but I don't think it is that straightforward to generalise the benefits multiple CPU on

> Interesting email address there :) > On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 01:18, =?koi8-r?Q?=22?=Valery > A.Khamenya=?koi8-r?Q?=22=20?= wrote: unfortunally some email parsers and email clients deny to work correctly with international conventions :( follow this URL for more details: http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/module-email.Header.html > On the same machine, LLVM definitely needs to

I am trying to locate instructions in an LLVM Pass by line and column number (reported by an third-party tool) to instrument them. To achieve this, I am compiling my source files with `clang -g -O0 -emit-llvm` and looking for the information in the metadata using this code: const DebugLoc &location = instruction->getDebugLoc(); // location.getLine() // location.getCol()

Having tried out llvm I had to notice that the fibonacci example program hangs after short: > ./run fib 1 1 2 3 5 8 ^C For the next number it would be supposed to last twice as long as for 8. However it hangs forever instead. using llvm-2.5-0.pm.1.1.x86_64 Does not matter whether I compile it with gcc or interprete it with lli.

> llvm_function_new/llvm_value_set_name/llvm_executionengine_run_function, > etc. > > If kept simple, standardized, and generic, I think it would be very useful > to people (even if incomplete). This would allow others to build on it, > and we could 'ship' it as a standard llvm library. It looks like my interface will look vaguely like this. Functions like

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

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

<Chris is cleaning out his inbox> Valery A.Khamenya wrote (in http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2003-August/000455.html): > there is a very simple using case concerning LLVM and I am wondering > whether it might be optimized at LLVM layer: > int rec_func(int x, int y) { > if(y<0) return x; > return y + rec_func(x, y-1); // should we really push x? > }

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 >

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: > >

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

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 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 have configured two machines for testing gfs filesystems. They are attached to a iscsi device and centos versions are: CentOS release 5.4 (Final) Linux node1.fib.upc.es 2.6.18-164.el5 #1 SMP Thu Sep 3 03:33:56 EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux The problem is if I try to mount a gfs partition it hangs. [root at node2 ~]# cman_tool status Version: 6.2.0 Config Version: 29 Cluster Name:

Hi, I'm working on OpenCL and I'm using clang as compiler (based on clang 3.7.0). I have a issue, I'm generating a bitcode file (that I can print before before the generation). But when I'm trying to read it again with clang, I have this issue: "error: Invalid record" How can I managed to know where it comes from? Thank you, Romaric Here is what is print before the

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

Hello, I recently noticed a performance issue of JIT execution vs native code of the following simple logic which computes the Fibonacci sequence: uint64_t fib(int n) { if (n <= 2) { return 1; } else { return fib(n-1) + fib(n-2); } } When compiled natively using clang++ with -O3, it took 0.17s to compute fib(40). However, when executing using LLJIT, fed with the IR output of "clang++

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1220 Bug ID: 1220 Summary: Reverse path filtering using "fib" needs better documentation Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P5 Component: nft

Hi Praveen, Thanks for pointing that out :) That's my mistake. I might have been misidentifying the issue with the assert statement. With those fixes made function calls seem to all call the first function called in the REPL. For example: ready> def fib(n) if (n < 2) then n else fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2); ... ready> fib(40); Evaluated to 102334155.000000 ready> fib(10); # This