On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Carl Friedrich Bolz wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 11:41 AM, Armin Rigo wrote:
>
>> Hi Carl,
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Carl Friedrich Bolz
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't have much time for things, about to leave on vacation. Just so
>>> that it doesn't get lost: on
On 08/02/2011 11:41 AM, Armin Rigo wrote:
Hi Carl,
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Carl Friedrich Bolz wrote:
I don't have much time for things, about to leave on vacation. Just so
that it doesn't get lost: on the unrolling-if branch, if you use the
decorator, the JIT should *not* look inside
On 02/08/11 11:41, Armin Rigo wrote:
Then it has nothing to do with unrolling: it should be renamed to
something like "look_inside_if". It just happens to mean, as a
side-effect, "if the condition is true, then look inside even in case
there is a loop, thus unrolling it".
look_inside_and_maybe
Hi Carl,
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Carl Friedrich Bolz wrote:
> I don't have much time for things, about to leave on vacation. Just so
> that it doesn't get lost: on the unrolling-if branch, if you use the
> decorator, the JIT should *not* look inside the function if the
> condition if fal
hi Alex, hi all,
I don't have much time for things, about to leave on vacation. Just so
that it doesn't get lost: on the unrolling-if branch, if you use the
decorator, the JIT should *not* look inside the function if the
condition if false. even if the function doesn't contain a loop. so
maybe the
