Unroll improvements #1286
Unroll improvements #1286
Conversation
|
Do you think it would work to rewrite |
|
Hmm except on systems without loop support. |
mmisono
force-pushed
the
unroll_improvements
branch
from
87a6444 to
96634eb
Compare
|
Fixed parser.yy. Thanks @fbs
I think it would, but potentially unrolling optimize an execution speed so I guess keeping unrolling as is is good. |
It always was a bit flaky but the new CI seems to have made it worse, got a commit to remove it in #1066 |
|
Bit curious where the 100 came from (or 20 for that matter). What is your usecase here? :) |
|
Actually there is no particular reason for 100, I just want to benchmark bpftrace (and BPF program) performance and unrolling is an easy way to generate long instructions. I feel 20 is a bit small. Maybe introducing By the way, it is easy to circumvent unroll limitation: |
|
Reminder to add a changelog entry for this (#1255) before merging |
This enables using positional params in unroll. For example:
```
% sudo ./src/bpftrace -e 'BEGIN { unroll($1) { printf("hi\n"); } }' 5
Attaching 1 probe...
hi
hi
hi
hi
hi
^C
```
Now that unrolling does not rely on LLVM's unroll, 20 is too restrictive for the maximum unroll limit.
mmisono
force-pushed
the
unroll_improvements
branch
from
96634eb to
e4c643f
Compare
|
Rebased onto master and updated a changelog. |
Add support of using positional params in unroll and increase the unroll limit to 100.
Example: