search for: bisector

...ns, so that 1) each polygon contains exactly one point 2) the polygon defines the area for which this specific point is closer than any other point. It's a bit like a map of areas "influenced" by that point, and it's obviously a matter of intersecting the perpendicular bisectors between adjacent points. I believe this type of map has a name, but I can't remember how it's called. Is there a function somewhere in a R package that may do this? Thanks for your help Pascal

So... looking at OptBisect, I have a few thoughts: 1) what's the purpose of the virtual interface/OptPassGate? I'm guessing maybe that worked around the circular referencing in these APIs? hmm, no, I suppose that wouldn't work/be relevant here. 2) Why is OptBisector a ManagedStatic? That seems pretty antithetical to the role of LLVMContext. When/why would a user be bisecting over multiple LLVMContexts? & even then, maybe it'd be more suitable for that grouping (the scope for the bisection) to be API driven - passing the bisector into the LLVMContext ct...

Hi all, Just wanted to see if anyone could answer this dumb question I had. I wrote a bisector for the inliner based on caller/callee at Inliner.cpp, but I am getting conflicting results. Does anyone know if the inlining order is deterministic? Regards, Kevin Intel WOS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-d...

& now looking back at the patch-in-progress, I see it allows setting the OptBisector/OptPassGate as suggested in (2). If that becomes the /only/ option (ie: LLVMContext has no default OptPassGate) then the virtual interface could be kept down in IR (though it's still a bit questionable to have those Analysis types (Loop, Region, CallGraphSCC) even declared in IR). Then the imp...

Andrew, I would not make the caller pass the description of the IR unit. That is because it would result in the description generated every time even if OptBisect is disabled. Description generation is not very chip. Thinking on the OptBisect extension, I believe passing the units are the right choice because OptPassGates may use them to make pass skipping decisions. -Yevgeny Rouban

On 03/30/2018 12:05 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > & now looking back at the patch-in-progress, I see it allows setting the OptBisector/OptPassGate as suggested in (2). Well, the patch currently discussed does not attempt to solve the passgate object management issue. It is left for the discretion of passgate object provider. > > If that becomes the /only/ option (ie: LLVMContext has no default OptPassGate) then the virt...

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:32 PM Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 03/30/2018 12:05 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > > & now looking back at the patch-in-progress, I see it allows setting > the OptBisector/OptPassGate as suggested in (2). > Well, the patch currently discussed does not attempt to solve the > passgate object management issue. > It is left for the discretion of passgate object provider. > > > > > If that becomes the /only/ option (ie: LLVMContext has no default...

...> > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:32 PM Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >     On 03/30/2018 12:05 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: >      > & now looking back at the patch-in-progress, I see it allows setting >     the OptBisector/OptPassGate as suggested in (2). >     Well, the patch currently discussed does not attempt to solve the >     passgate object management issue. >     It is left for the discretion of passgate object provider. > >      > >      > If that becomes the /only/ option (ie:...

...2, 2018 at 11:32 PM Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On 03/30/2018 12:05 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > > > & now looking back at the patch-in-progress, I see it allows > setting > > the OptBisector/OptPassGate as suggested in (2). > > Well, the patch currently discussed does not attempt to solve the > > passgate object management issue. > > It is left for the discretion of passgate object provider. > > > > > > > > If that b...

Here are four small patches. First, I enabled all the warnings, then I fixed the newly exposed offenses, then I put the warning-enabling patch at the end, for the sake of future bisectors: [1/4] ocaml/guestfs_c.c avoid signed/unsigned-comparison warning [2/4] ocaml/guestfs_c.c: avoid warning about initialization discarding "const" [3/4] ocaml/guestfs_c.c: avoid warning about missing prototypes [4/4] build: enable gcc warnings in capitests/ and ocaml/ >From 1accb6772...

...llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >  > >  >     On 03/30/2018 12:05 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: >  >      > & now looking back at the patch-in-progress, I see > it allows > setting >  >     the OptBisector/OptPassGate as suggested in (2). >  >     Well, the patch currently discussed does not attempt to > solve the >  >     passgate object management issue. >  >     It is left for the discretion of passgate object provider. >  > >...

...or Sergeev via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > >> > On 03/30/2018 12:05 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: >> > > & now looking back at the patch-in-progress, I see it allows >> setting >> > the OptBisector/OptPassGate as suggested in (2). >> > Well, the patch currently discussed does not attempt to solve the >> > passgate object management issue. >> > It is left for the discretion of passgate object provider. >> > >> > > >>...

...actly which instcombine, dagcombine, or whatever causes an issue. I support the addition of a pass counter if it helps bisecting, but just wanted to point out that this can be as fine grained as the community is willing to accept. Incidentally, would be great to have some fuzzers running the pass bisector to make sure nothing crashes when a pass is added/removed, excepting any backend passes required to run. Pete Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 25, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Ok I cleaned it up and added some explaining commen...

...actly which instcombine, dagcombine, or whatever causes an issue. I support the addition of a pass counter if it helps bisecting, but just wanted to point out that this can be as fine grained as the community is willing to accept. Incidentally, would be great to have some fuzzers running the pass bisector to make sure nothing crashes when a pass is added/removed, excepting any backend passes required to run. Pete Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Ok I cleaned it up and add...

...actly which instcombine, dagcombine, or whatever causes an issue. I support the addition of a pass counter if it helps bisecting, but just wanted to point out that this can be as fine grained as the community is willing to accept. Incidentally, would be great to have some fuzzers running the pass bisector to make sure nothing crashes when a pass is added/removed, excepting any backend passes required to run. Pete Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Ok I cleaned it up and add...

Ok I cleaned it up and added some explaining comments. It's in llvm/utils/abtest now. - Mathias > On Mar 25, 2016, at 4:40 PM, Michael Gottesman <mgottesman at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Mar 25, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de <mailto:matze at braunis.de>> wrote: >> >> And as we are on the topic of bisecting/diagnosing