Yesterday, I've implemented tail recursion optimization
(http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/fpc/trunk/compiler/opttail.pas resulting in
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=158 pp11 is the new
compiler, fpc11 the old, both are 2.1.1). It isn't enabled yet because it still
needs some
Op Tue, 10 Oct 2006, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
Yesterday, I've implemented tail recursion optimization
(http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/fpc/trunk/compiler/opttail.pas resulting in
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=158 pp11 is the new
compiler, fpc11 the old, both are
On 10 okt 2006, at 10:05, Daniël Mantione wrote:
If the optimization needs significant processing power, -O3. If it
doesn't
but is debug safe, -O1, if it is not debug safe, -O2.
It's definitely not debug safe, since it messes up stack information.
A separate option -OoTAILREC is IMHO not
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Yesterday, I've implemented tail recursion optimization
(http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/fpc/trunk/compiler/opttail.pas resulting in
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=158 pp11 is the new
compiler, fpc11 the old, both are 2.1.1). It isn't enabled yet
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Tue, 10 Oct 2006, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
Yesterday, I've implemented tail recursion optimization
(http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/fpc/trunk/compiler/opttail.pas resulting in
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=158 pp11 is the new
compiler,
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 10 okt 2006, at 10:05, Daniël Mantione wrote:
If the optimization needs significant processing power, -O3. If it
doesn't
but is debug safe, -O1, if it is not debug safe, -O2.
It's definitely not debug safe, since it messes up stack information.
Not really. I
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 08:29, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Tue, 10 Oct 2006, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
Yesterday, I've implemented tail recursion optimization
(http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/fpc/trunk/compiler/opttail.pas
resulting in
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Yesterday, I've implemented tail recursion optimization
(http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/fpc/trunk/compiler/opttail.pas
resulting in
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=158 pp11 is
the new
compiler, fpc11 the old, both are
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 08:29, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Tue, 10 Oct 2006, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
Yesterday, I've implemented tail recursion optimization
(http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/fpc/trunk/compiler/opttail.pas
resulting in
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
-OoTAILREC? -O3? Something different?
It doesn't always improve performance ? It takes much more code ?
?
I thought the difference between -O2 and -O3 is that -O3 is not actually
guaranteed to improve global performance, for example due to the code
expanding a lot.
On 10 okt 2006, at 10:34, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Not really. I didn't try it yet but it shouldn't mess up much. The
optimziation
is done completely on the node level, the pascal code would look like
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=156 except
that there
are temps
Op Tue, 10 Oct 2006, schreef Micha Nelissen:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Yesterday, I've implemented tail recursion optimization
(http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/fpc/trunk/compiler/opttail.pas resulting
in
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=158 pp11 is the
new
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 10 okt 2006, at 10:34, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Not really. I didn't try it yet but it shouldn't mess up much. The
optimziation
is done completely on the node level, the pascal code would look like
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=156 except
On 10 okt 2006, at 11:09, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Also, do you actually insert goto/label nodes? That would
degrade the performance of the register variable assignment
because of
the current limitations concerning flow analysis (i.e., for
sufficiently
complex routines, the tail recursion
Hi,
I'm trying to reduce the number of recompilation needed of units.
Currently compiler very often recompiles due to possibility of changed
inlined functions being present. Attached patch tries store this info in
ppu (whether inlined functions are present). Is this a good patch ?
Btw,
Jonas Maebe wrote:
The recursive call is usually inside an if anyways so the ssa
optimizer is lost
anyways, no?
For the part inside the if: yes. But not for the part coming before it.
What's more important however is that goto/label not only removes the
usage of SSA, it also means that all
Op Tue, 10 Oct 2006, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
There's a FlagsUsed field in the ttaiprop record which is set to true if
the flags result of that instruction is used.
I guess it could be used to change to code above to
leal 1(%esi),%eax
?
Or is this slower on some CPUs?
In the worst
On 10 okt 2006, at 13:46, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Practical argument:
the assembler code _is_ better for the code I tested and up to as
twice as fast
as the original one.
That's indeed true for an extremely small function with so few local
variables/parameters that even on an i386 it
Jonas Maebe wrote:
[...]
Well, basically I agree with all your points ;) That's why I said the
optimization is almost useless for real world programs. Nevertheless it helps
for the benchmarks and gcc does it to. I'll try to find out the influence on the
compiler/rtl, there are some examples
Hello,
If I have a ansistring, and cast that to a WideString, fpc is
converting from which encoding to which encoding?
ansistring can hold utf-8 also, not only iso. I'm not sure what
WideString holds. Maybe UTF-16? Or a limited UTF-16 with only 2 bytes
characters.
thanks,
--
Felipe Monteiro de
Op Tue, 10 Oct 2006, schreef Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho:
Hello,
If I have a ansistring, and cast that to a WideString, fpc is
converting from which encoding to which encoding?
Without widestring manager, it converts iso-8859-1 to UCS-2.
ansistring can hold utf-8 also, not only iso.
Hi,
I'm trying to reduce the number of recompilation needed of units.
Currently compiler very often recompiles due to possibility of changed
inlined functions being present. Attached patch tries store this info in
ppu (whether inlined functions are present). Is this a good patch ?
Btw,
Peter Vreman wrote:
This is not correct. Also other things like calling conventions can change
in delphi mode. In ppu.pas at line 33 you can enable {$define INTFPPU}
Because the calling convention is only specified in the implementation ?
Micha
___
I'm not sure what
WideString holds. Maybe UTF-16? Or a limited UTF-16 with only 2 bytes
characters.
UCS-2. Basically this is UTF-16 with only 2-byte characters, allthough
there are small differences in the high regions; UCS-2 is code
points $0..$, while UTF-16 has facilities to allow
Hi,
Can the FindFirst optimization in 2.1.1 for unix/sysutils.pp be merged
to 2.0.5 ? Revision 4772. Not only is it more efficient, it also fixes a
bug: I cannot find a single directory with FindFirst in 2.0.5.
Furthermore, attached is a patch for another optimization: do not
allocate a record
25 matches
Mail list logo
