feat: Use real wasm tail call instruction #510
Conversation
ospencer
force-pushed
the
tail-call-instructions
branch
from
9d8cfd9
to
8222184
Compare
ospencer
force-pushed
the
upgrade-binaryenml
branch
from
8b17165
to
edc60cd
Compare
ospencer
force-pushed
the
tail-call-instructions
branch
2 times, most recently
from
90b1f81
to
c24e445
Compare
ospencer
force-pushed
the
tail-call-instructions
branch
from
c24e445
to
fc940a1
Compare
compiler/src/codegen/transl_anf.re
Outdated
| @@ -589,7 +596,14 @@ let rec compile_comp = (env, c) => { | |||
| ) | |||
| | CLambda(args, body) => | |||
| MAllocate(MClosure(compile_lambda(env, args, body, c.comp_loc))) | |||
| | CApp(f, args) => | |||
| | CApp(f, args, true) => | |||
| /* TODO: Utilize MCallKnown */ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It should actually say use MReturnCallKnown 😛
But it means that we should use return_call when we know what the function we're calling is instead of return_call_indirect. We just don't have that information available in the compiler right now. There's a similar comment for non-tail CApp (which is where I copied this from).
compiler/src/codegen/transl_anf.re
Outdated
| compile_imm(env, f), | ||
| List.map(compile_imm(env), args), | ||
| ) | ||
| | CApp(f, args, _) => |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we match false instead of _ here?
| * Further optimizations (such as using only a single function) could be done for directly-recursive functions, but | ||
| these are not implemented at this time. | ||
| */; | ||
|
|
||
| open Anftree; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So this file still needs to exist?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah. We still need to tell the compiler when we need to do a tail call.
compiler/test/test_end_to_end.re
Outdated
| @@ -922,7 +922,7 @@ let gc = [ | |||
| "(1, 2)", | |||
| ), | |||
| tgcfile("fib_gc_err", 1024, "fib-gc", "Out of memory"), | |||
| tgcfile("fib_gc", 3072, "fib-gc", "832040"), | |||
| tgcfile("fib_gc", 4000, "fib-gc", "832040"), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does it mean that this goes up to 4000?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's just that this doesn't generate the same code anymore (because of the tail call instruction) and that changed the amount of memory this uses. It definitely uses less memory than before, but the way we test this is currently broken (see #504), and the way our testing works makes this number a little arbitrary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did a binary search to find how much memory spanned—that's a better term for what this is—happened and updated it.
Recreation of #488.
Closes #506.
This is actually a feature instead of a chore because now tail calls work across modules.