Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|
Change-Id: I96a187792a1fd48cffd6b56ec22347aee8cae3af
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6526
Autosubmit: sterni <sternenseemann@systemli.org>
Reviewed-by: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
|
Change-Id: Ifaa6da345d408a69ce46d6a0e7483352715c75bd
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6525
Autosubmit: sterni <sternenseemann@systemli.org>
Reviewed-by: tazjin <tazjin@tvl.su>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
|
Change-Id: I18d50ac8e157929a027f8bf284e65f1eb8950d5a
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6488
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
Reviewed-by: sterni <sternenseemann@systemli.org>
|
|
Previously, "calling" (setting up the VM run loop for executing a call
frame) and "running" (running this loop to completion) were separate
operations.
This was basically an attempt to avoid nesting `VM::run` invocations.
However, doing things this way introduced some tricky bugs for exiting
out of the call frames of thunks vs. builtins & closures.
For now, we unify the two operations and always return the value to
the caller directly. For now this makes calls a little less effective,
but it gives us a chance to nail down some other strange behaviours
and then re-optimise this afterwards.
To make sure we tackle this again further down I've added it to the
list of known possible optimisations.
Change-Id: I96828ab6a628136e0bac1bf03555faa4e6b74ece
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6415
Reviewed-by: sterni <sternenseemann@systemli.org>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
|
Change-Id: Iadbfbe2864ae42fe5492ef3ede0925baee4872b2
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6413
Reviewed-by: sterni <sternenseemann@systemli.org>
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
|
|
Change-Id: I9bc41e57e1cfdf536d7b9048bac2e7aff1ee2ffa
Reviewed-on: https://cl.tvl.fyi/c/depot/+/6313
Tested-by: BuildkiteCI
Reviewed-by: sterni <sternenseemann@systemli.org>
|