[CakeML-Dev] Bootstrap evaluation timings
Magnus Myreen
magnus.myreen at gmail.com
Thu Nov 17 22:36:33 UTC 2016
I think the inline_size_limit of 10 is potentially risky. I suggest
the bootstrap is run with a lower setting, e.g. 2 or 3. -- Magnus
On 18 November 2016 at 09:26, Yong Kiam <tanyongkiam at gmail.com> wrote:
> Argh, that's a shame. Would moving more of asm_ok up help? There are still
> some things in LabAsms that can be removed.
>
> I'm not sure know why word_to_stack -specifically- would slow down by so
> much. Could it be a one-off thing or did you hit that slowdown multiple
> times already?
>
> Another possibility: changes to the default compiler configuration could
> have slowed it down.
>
> For example this:
> https://github.com/CakeML/cakeml/commit/98188addc34e5c3a034572c10eca7b3b41aff71c
>
> (e.g. maybe more things got inlined)
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Ramana Kumar <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> I will put the timings from various runs of the bootstrap on this web page
>> so we can more easily refer to them:
>> https://cakeml.org/bootstrap-timing.txt.
>> I've added partial timings for a recent revision (still waiting on the
>> rest).
>> There is currently a problem with word_to_stack, which is now taking 5
>> hours where it used to take 1.
>> And given that it seems to be stuck on "sec_ok" I'm wondering how much the
>> asm_ok Asm check removal has really helped... I guess it was supposed to
>> bring it down to 6h, so we'll see...
>>
>> On 29 September 2016 at 10:47, Ramana Kumar <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have tried running the "sec_ok" part of the bootstrap with the asm_ok
>>> checks for Asm lines turned off. Two things to report:
>>>
>>> The time is significantly improved:
>>> runtime: 6h02m19s, gctime: 30m06s, systime: 3m11s.
>>> (compared to previously: 10h46m09s, gctime: 1h07m37s, systime:
>>> 5m21s.)
>>>
>>> Secondly, this timing information is bogus: the wall clock time was
>>> definitely under 2 hours (I didn't check precisely). I expect timing for
>>> threads in parallel execution are added sequentially. So for the parts of
>>> the bootstrap run in parallel, the timings probably need to be divided by up
>>> to 8 to get an accurate picture. Perhaps I should annotate which ones are in
>>> parallel and which not.
>>>
>>> I think it's worthwhile removing the asm_ok checks. I can help doing so
>>> if someone else sets up some cheated theorems to fill in.
>>>
>>> On 8 September 2016 at 14:33, Ramana Kumar <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here are some timings now including the last step (x64Bootstrap).
>>>> (The commit number doesn't exactly match the output labels, since I
>>>> changed some of that (about to be committed) in the middle.)
>>>>
>>>> Here we can see that the biggest problem (>10 hours) is the checking
>>>> that all the lines in the final ASM code satisfy line_ok_light (i.e., the
>>>> "sec_ok" thing below). But there are a few steps that take 1-2 hours each,
>>>> and then a few more that take 20-40 mins, so ... definitely more than an
>>>> overnight job still...
>>>>
>>>> 1a939d3
>>>>
>>>> eval to_mod: runtime: 1m49s, gctime: 3.4s, systime: 0.35667s.
>>>> eval to_con: runtime: 8m56s, gctime: 5.5s, systime: 0.84000s.
>>>> eval to_dec: runtime: 7.4s, gctime: 2.4s, systime: 0.15667s.
>>>> eval to_exh: runtime: 3m32s, gctime: 8.9s, systime: 0.68667s.
>>>> eval to_pat: runtime: 14.1s, gctime: 1.4s, systime: 0.06667s.
>>>> eval to_clos: runtime: 5.3s, gctime: 1.1s, systime: 0.05667s.
>>>> eval to_bvl: runtime: 2m36s, gctime: 12.6s, systime: 0.88000s.
>>>> eval to_bvi:
>>>> ... inline: runtime: 6.1s, gctime: 1.2s, systime: 0.09333s.
>>>> ... optimise: runtime: 24m53s, gctime: 1m53s, systime: 17.1s.
>>>> ... compile: runtime: 2m27s, gctime: 11.9s, systime: 1.5s.
>>>> eval to_data: runtime: 8m11s, gctime: 21.4s, systime: 1.2s.
>>>> eval data_to_word: runtime: 8m28s, gctime: 30.4s, systime: 2.4s.
>>>>
>>>> word_to_word: runtime: 1h00m52s, gctime: 5m53s, systime: 34.1s.
>>>>
>>>> clash: runtime: 5m06s, gctime: 22.3s, systime: 2.8s.
>>>> (external oracle) runtime: 2m31s, gctime: 1.4s, systime:
>>>> 0.77667s.
>>>>
>>>> chunk: runtime: 1h08m52s, gctime: 6m06s, systime: 28.2s.
>>>> (chunk results) runtime: 11m49s, gctime: 1m13s, systime: 7.2s.
>>>>
>>>> eval word_to_stack: runtime: 1h35m38s, gctime: 3m53s, systime:
>>>> 9.4s.
>>>>
>>>> stack_alloc: runtime: 23m27s, gctime: 45.7s, systime: 6.7s.
>>>> stack_remove: runtime: 19m15s, gctime: 21.5s, systime: 4.7s.
>>>> stack_names: runtime: 15m20s, gctime: 24.9s, systime: 3.2s.
>>>> stack_to_lab: runtime: 42m12s, gctime: 9m27s, systime: 10.4s.
>>>>
>>>> filter_skip: runtime: 3m56s, gctime: 24.7s, systime: 3.2s.
>>>> ffi_limit: runtime: 2m33s, gctime: 1m39s, systime: 3.2s.
>>>> enc_sec: runtime: 25m01s, gctime: 1m40s, systime: 11.0s.
>>>> sec_length: runtime: 4m11s, gctime: 48.9s, systime: 3.5s.
>>>>
>>>> compute_labels: runtime: 1h17m12s, gctime: 13m50s, systime:
>>>> 58.7s.
>>>>
>>>> enc_secs_again: runtime: 2h00m15s, gctime: 24m27s, systime:
>>>> 1m46s.
>>>>
>>>> upd_lab_len: runtime: 5m51s, gctime: 55.9s, systime: 3.4s.
>>>> sec_length2: runtime: 3m32s, gctime: 8.4s, systime: 1.2s.
>>>>
>>>> compute_labels2: runtime: 1h27m09s, gctime: 22m29s, systime:
>>>> 1m17s.
>>>>
>>>> enc_secs_again2: runtime: 2h37m41s, gctime: 1h03m15s, systime:
>>>> 3m01s.
>>>>
>>>> pad_sectionruntime: 8m47s, gctime: 35.8s, systime: 3.8s.
>>>>
>>>> sec_ok: runtime: 10h46m09s, gctime: 1h07m37s, systime: 5m21s.
>>>>
>>>> all_secs_ok: runtime: 4.5s, gctime: 0.07667s, systime: 0.00333s.
>>>> prog_to_bytes: runtime: 7m27s, gctime: 2m23s, systime: 6.3s.
>>>>
>>>> flat_bytes: runtime: 45m21s, gctime: 8m25s, systime: 8.2s.
>>>> expand_defs: runtime: 49m25s, gctime: 31m53s, systime: 1.6s.
>>>>
>>>> On 7 September 2016 at 08:43, Ramana Kumar <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> More timing for a later commit. I believe this one includes Magnus's
>>>>> changes to add compile_seqs, which seem not to have had much effect. (I'm
>>>>> hoping I haven't messed up the timing somehow... it's surprising how stable
>>>>> they are...)
>>>>>
>>>>> commit: 83b3aaf
>>>>>
>>>>> eval to_mod: runtime: 1m50s, gctime: 5.8s, systime: 1.0s.
>>>>> eval to_con: runtime: 8m41s, gctime: 4.2s, systime: 0.65000s.
>>>>> eval to_dec: runtime: 11.5s, gctime: 6.4s, systime: 0.46333s.
>>>>> eval to_exh: runtime: 3m27s, gctime: 6.8s, systime: 0.89000s.
>>>>> eval to_pat: runtime: 14.7s, gctime: 1.7s, systime: 0.11667s.
>>>>> eval to_clos: runtime: 5.5s, gctime: 1.1s, systime: 0.06333s.
>>>>> eval to_bvl: runtime: 2m29s, gctime: 5.6s, systime: 0.28333s.
>>>>> eval to_bvi:
>>>>> ... inline: runtime: 6.3s, gctime: 1.3s, systime: 0.06333s.
>>>>> ... optimise: runtime: 23m26s, gctime: 28.8s, systime: 6.3s.
>>>>> ... compile: runtime: 2m18s, gctime: 4.1s, systime: 0.25000s.
>>>>> eval to_data: runtime: 8m23s, gctime: 44.3s, systime: 3.2s.
>>>>> eval data_to_word: runtime: 8m23s, gctime: 39.3s, systime: 3.1s.
>>>>>
>>>>> word_to_word: runtime: 58m18s, gctime: 4m53s, systime: 30.1s.
>>>>>
>>>>> clash: runtime: 5m01s, gctime: 18.4s, systime: 2.5s.
>>>>> (external oracle) runtime: 2m31s, gctime: 1.9s, systime:
>>>>> 0.20667s.
>>>>>
>>>>> chunk: runtime: 1h01m18s, gctime: 1m13s, systime: 22.9s.
>>>>> (chunk results) runtime: 14m26s, gctime: 5m57s, systime: 9.1s.
>>>>>
>>>>> eval word_to_stack: runtime: 1h29m05s, gctime: 4m38s, systime:
>>>>> 14.4s.
>>>>>
>>>>> stack_alloc: runtime: 23m03s, gctime: 58.3s, systime: 5.8s.
>>>>> stack_remove: runtime: 20m09s, gctime: 1m29s, systime: 6.5s.
>>>>> stack_names: runtime: 15m05s, gctime: 41.6s, systime: 3.9s.
>>>>> stack_to_lab: runtime: 35m11s, gctime: 2m54s, systime: 12.0s.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6 September 2016 at 10:11, Yong Kiam <tanyongkiam at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, that is surprising. I expected the main function to have a good
>>>>>> number of If-s (which my change should have helped with), but it seems like
>>>>>> that didn't affect the time at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are two possibilities:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Caching lookups into the colouring function for the chunk step. The
>>>>>> function is defined as an option-lookup into an oracle sptree:
>>>>>> https://github.com/CakeML/cakeml/blob/9937677d34446adace9f29d5719131f9a5b4aeac/compiler/backend/reg_alloc/reg_allocScript.sml#L110
>>>>>> I'm not sure how much that will help though, since the variable names
>>>>>> should be in SSA already, so it is mostly looking up different things each
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Make splitting more aggressive, i.e. the main function should be
>>>>>> divided into more pieces so that its colouring sptree isn't too big (it gets
>>>>>> larger when there are more variables too).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, are you getting some kind of effect where every parallel thread
>>>>>> is just waiting for one to finish (namely the one working on the main
>>>>>> function)? 2) might help divide the work more evenly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some more timings, for two recent commits. Not a big difference, it
>>>>>>> seems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> commit: 69ac2f9
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eval to_mod: runtime: 1m45s, gctime: 3.8s, systime: 0.36667s.
>>>>>>> eval to_con: runtime: 8m36s, gctime: 5.5s, systime: 0.90667s.
>>>>>>> eval to_dec: runtime: 7.3s, gctime: 2.3s, systime: 0.17000s.
>>>>>>> eval to_exh: runtime: 3m27s, gctime: 9.5s, systime: 1.1s.
>>>>>>> eval to_pat: runtime: 13.9s, gctime: 1.5s, systime: 0.10333s.
>>>>>>> eval to_clos: runtime: 5.2s, gctime: 1.1s, systime: 0.07000s.
>>>>>>> eval to_bvl: runtime: 2m28s, gctime: 5.5s, systime: 0.22667s.
>>>>>>> eval to_bvi: ... inline: runtime: 6.0s, gctime: 1.3s, systime:
>>>>>>> 0.09000s.
>>>>>>> ... optimise:runtime: 23m27s, gctime: 6.9s, systime: 3.2s.
>>>>>>> ... compile: runtime: 2m33s, gctime: 19.3s, systime: 1.2s.
>>>>>>> eval to_data: runtime: 8m29s, gctime: 51.5s, systime: 3.4s.
>>>>>>> eval data_to_word: runtime: 8m41s, gctime: 50.2s, systime:
>>>>>>> 3.4s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> word_to_word: runtime: 58m21s, gctime: 4m28s, systime: 28.0s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> clash: runtime: 4m58s, gctime: 15.5s, systime: 2.7s.
>>>>>>> (external oracle) runtime: 2m32s, gctime: 1.8s, systime:
>>>>>>> 0.24000s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> chunk: runtime: 1h13m05s, gctime: 6m06s, systime: 26.9s.
>>>>>>> (chunk results) runtime: 13m31s, gctime: 2m47s, systime:
>>>>>>> 14.4s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eval word_to_stack: runtime: 1h32m52s, gctime: 6m12s, systime:
>>>>>>> 12.7s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> stack_alloc: runtime: 23m03s, gctime: 42.2s, systime: 5.8s.
>>>>>>> stack_remove: runtime: 19m08s, gctime: 22.7s, systime: 4.3s.
>>>>>>> stack_names: runtime: 15m45s, gctime: 1m05s, systime: 5.3s.
>>>>>>> stack_to_lab: runtime: 41m59s, gctime: 9m22s, systime: 8.6s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> commit: 9937677
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eval to_mod: runtime: 1m51s, gctime: 5.9s, systime: 0.90000s.
>>>>>>> eval to_con: runtime: 8m48s, gctime: 4.4s, systime: 0.71667s.
>>>>>>> eval to_dec: runtime: 7.2s, gctime: 2.3s, systime: 0.15667s.
>>>>>>> eval to_exh: runtime: 3m30s, gctime: 9.5s, systime: 1.2s.
>>>>>>> eval to_pat: runtime: 14.3s, gctime: 1.6s, systime: 0.09000s.
>>>>>>> eval to_clos: runtime: 5.2s, gctime: 0.95667s, systime:
>>>>>>> 0.07333s.
>>>>>>> eval to_bvl: runtime: 2m28s, gctime: 5.2s, systime: 0.32667s.
>>>>>>> eval to_bvi: ... inline: runtime: 5.8s, gctime: 0.88000s,
>>>>>>> systime: 0.05333s.
>>>>>>> ... optimise: runtime: 23m24s, gctime: 5.8s, systime: 3.0s.
>>>>>>> ... compile: runtime: 2m27s, gctime: 12.5s, systime: 0.78333s.
>>>>>>> eval to_data: runtime: 8m18s, gctime: 34.2s, systime: 3.0s.
>>>>>>> eval data_to_word: runtime: 8m24s, gctime: 37.4s, systime:
>>>>>>> 2.8s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> word_to_word: runtime: 57m40s, gctime: 4m56s, systime: 30.1s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> clash: runtime: 5m12s, gctime: 33.6s, systime: 3.9s.
>>>>>>> (external oracle) runtime: 2m31s, gctime: 1.8s, systime:
>>>>>>> 0.15667s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> chunk: runtime: 1h07m54s, gctime: 6m07s, systime: 29.5s.
>>>>>>> (chunk results) runtime: 13m21s, gctime: 2m54s, systime:
>>>>>>> 14.0s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eval word_to_stack: runtime: 1h34m00s, gctime: 7m32s, systime:
>>>>>>> 8.1s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> stack_alloc: runtime: 22m35s, gctime: 18.7s, systime: 3.7s.
>>>>>>> stack_remove: runtime: 19m04s, gctime: 16.7s, systime: 3.9s.
>>>>>>> stack_names: runtime: 15m13s, gctime: 37.8s, systime: 4.0s.
>>>>>>> stack_to_lab: runtime: 36m21s, gctime: 3m29s, systime: 13.9s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1 September 2016 at 09:04, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>>> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, updated timings for the middle bit, as of 4d0d56b (which is
>>>>>>>> also for the front half timings in my previous email).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eval data_to_word: runtime: 7m42s, gctime: 35.7s, systime:
>>>>>>>> 2.7s.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> word_to_word: runtime: 56m07s, gctime: 4m48s, systime: 28.7s.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> clash: runtime: 4m48s, gctime: 16.0s, systime: 2.2s.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (external oracle) runtime: 2m21s, gctime: 1.7s, systime:
>>>>>>>> 0.10667s.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> chunk: runtime: 1h10m00s, gctime: 6m06s, systime: 27.1s.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (use chunk) runtime: 12m26s, gctime: 2m29s, systime: 11.0s.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> eval word_to_stack: runtime: 1h29m28s, gctime: 7m23s,
>>>>>>>> systime: 8.0s.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> stack_alloc: runtime: 21m13s, gctime: 24.3s, systime: 3.9s.
>>>>>>>> stack_remove: runtime: 18m12s, gctime: 46.6s, systime: 4.3s.
>>>>>>>> stack_names: runtime: 14m08s, gctime: 32.1s, systime: 4.1s.
>>>>>>>> stack_to_lab: runtime: 36m41s, gctime: 1m19s, systime: 10.6s.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It doesn't look like 91d539b made a huge difference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1 September 2016 at 08:42, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>>>> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have some timings for the front half of the backend now:
>>>>>>>>> eval to_mod: runtime: 1m45s, gctime: 9.6s, systime:
>>>>>>>>> 0.40000s.
>>>>>>>>> eval to_con: runtime: 7m00s, gctime: 5.4s, systime:
>>>>>>>>> 0.80667s.
>>>>>>>>> eval to_dec: runtime: 7.0s, gctime: 2.3s, systime: 0.13333s.
>>>>>>>>> eval to_exh: runtime: 3m18s, gctime: 4.5s, systime:
>>>>>>>>> 0.67000s.
>>>>>>>>> eval to_pat: runtime: 15.9s, gctime: 3.7s, systime:
>>>>>>>>> 0.50667s.
>>>>>>>>> eval to_clos: runtime: 5.0s, gctime: 1.1s, systime:
>>>>>>>>> 0.07000s.
>>>>>>>>> eval to_bvl: runtime: 2m18s, gctime: 5.2s, systime:
>>>>>>>>> 0.36000s.
>>>>>>>>> eval to_bvi:
>>>>>>>>> ... inline: runtime: 5.8s, gctime: 1.1s, systime: 0.07667s.
>>>>>>>>> ... optimise: runtime: 22m52s, gctime: 30.1s, systime: 6.1s.
>>>>>>>>> ... compile: runtime: 2m05s, gctime: 6.9s, systime:
>>>>>>>>> 0.72000s.
>>>>>>>>> eval to_data: runtime: 5m44s, gctime: 28.8s, systime: 2.1s.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why there are suspicious timings for things like
>>>>>>>>> stack_alloc. One possibility is that the "time" function adds up times
>>>>>>>>> across all parallel threads. In that case, it would make sense to divide the
>>>>>>>>> time by 8. I would need to investigate whether this is actually what's going
>>>>>>>>> on...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 30 August 2016 at 19:36, Magnus Myreen <magnus.myreen at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My guess is that evaluation times get slower once we pass dataLang
>>>>>>>>>> because the programs become a lot larger once the data abstraction
>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>> been removed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are however some suspicious looking timings here. I note
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> stack_alloc does near to nothing, but still takes 31 minutes to
>>>>>>>>>> run.
>>>>>>>>>> Here is stack_alloc's main compiler function:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/CakeML/cakeml/blob/master/compiler/backend/stack_allocScript.sml#L166
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Magnus
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 30 August 2016 at 03:43, Ramana Kumar
>>>>>>>>>> <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > I have some information now on where slow parts of the bootstrap
>>>>>>>>>> > evaluation
>>>>>>>>>> > are, which we could use to direct effort in case we want to
>>>>>>>>>> > speed things up.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > Currently I have timings for between dataLang and labLang. (I
>>>>>>>>>> > know the
>>>>>>>>>> > phases above dataLang are mostly quick, and the ones after
>>>>>>>>>> > labLang are
>>>>>>>>>> > mostly slow, but I will have to get actual numbers later)
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > eval data_to_word: runtime: 7m48s, gctime: 21.9s,
>>>>>>>>>> > systime: 2.1s.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > word_to_word: runtime: 55m07s, gctime: 5m31s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>> > 30.9s.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > clash: runtime: 5m33s, gctime: 34.4s, systime: 4.4s.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > (external oracle) runtime: 2m30s, gctime: 12.1s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>> > 1.5s
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > chunk: runtime: 1h04m14s, gctime: 1m37s, systime: 20.8s.
>>>>>>>>>> > (use results of chunk) runtime: 11m21s, gctime: 2m00s,
>>>>>>>>>> > systime:
>>>>>>>>>> > 10.1s.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > eval word_to_stack: runtime: 1h34m21s, gctime: 9m42s,
>>>>>>>>>> > systime: 9.4s.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > stack_alloc: runtime: 31m55s, gctime: 30.3s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>> > 5.4s.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > stack_remove: runtime: 25m43s, gctime: 1m32s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>> > 6.9s.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > stack_names: runtime: 22m03s, gctime: 3m01s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>> > 6.6s.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > stack_to_lab: runtime: 56m00s, gctime: 4m38s, systime:
>>>>>>>>>> > 23.8s.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > What exactly these different phases are doing can be found by
>>>>>>>>>> > looking at
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > https://github.com/CakeML/cakeml/blob/master/compiler/bootstrap/evaluation/to_lab_x64BootstrapScript.sml.
>>>>>>>>>> > I think the one confusingly called "chunk" means checking the
>>>>>>>>>> > results of the
>>>>>>>>>> > external reg. alloc oracle.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> > Dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> > Dev at cakeml.org
>>>>>>>>>> > https://lists.cakeml.org/listinfo/dev
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Dev mailing list
>>>>>>> Dev at cakeml.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.cakeml.org/listinfo/dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Developers mailing list
>> Developers at cakeml.org
>> https://lists.cakeml.org/listinfo/developers
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> Developers at cakeml.org
> https://lists.cakeml.org/listinfo/developers
>
More information about the Developers
mailing list