search for: seses

I have a data frame with two factors (sampling 'unit', 'species'). I want to calculate the number of unique 'species' per 'unit.' I can calculate the number of unique values for each variable separately, but can't get a count for each ?unit?. > data=read.csv("C:/Desktop/sr_sort_practice.csv") > attach(data) > data[1:10,] unit species 1

Tobias, Thanks for taking the time to summarize all this. It's a great writeup. I'm moving the thread to llvm-dev. My responses below. On May 21, 2012, at 5:06 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > First of all some information about the RegionInfo pass: > > ======================================================================= > The very first paper I

Configuration: Samba 2.2.8a with openLDAP 2.1.30 on a SeSE 8.2. server When adding a user using a ldif file we give the user a given name, say Ruud Baart. The cn and uid are the same, say 21cs12345 (a studentnumber). After adding the user to LDAP the displayname is as expected: "Ruud Baart". However after smbpasswd -a 21cs12345 -s secret the displayname is "21cs12345".

On 01/20/10 18:05, Jan Sjodin wrote: >>>> bbs, to generate these edges. As we do not have to modify the CFG other >>>> passes like dominance information are still valid, and we do not have to >>>> create a lot of auxiliary bbs, to be able to detect all regions. This >>>> saves memory and runtime. In general it is probably not too easy to

Hi everyone! I want to clarify the purpose and design of SESES. Thus far, I've characterized it as an LVI mitigation which is somewhat incorrect. SESES was built as a "big hammer." It is intended to protect against many side channel vulnerabilities (Spectre v1, Spectre v4, LVI, etc, etc) even though it was built in response to LVI. For folks pr...

I''ve got a fairly simple system with a table for my Users that includes a CountryId field which looks up to the CountryId field of my Country table. What I would like to happen is for my Rails application, which contains models for both User and Country, to be able to draw the dropdown list of available countries on the edit page, like it does in all the tutorials. My model classes look

...not clear to me that doing it in *both* places > is important. Do we really need both? > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 6:14 PM Zola Bridges via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi everyone! >> >> I want to clarify the purpose and design of SESES. Thus far, I've >> characterized it as an LVI mitigation which is somewhat incorrect. >> >> SESES was built as a "big hammer." It is intended to protect against many >> side channel vulnerabilities (Spectre v1, Spectre v4, LVI, etc, etc) even >> though it...

Why not use the "standard" algorithm for detecting SESE-regions and building a program structure tree? It should handle everything you want. It also becomes much simpler to specify a connected SESE-region by entry/exit edges, while a disconnected region is specified by entry/exit blocks. Only defining regions on blocks is not enough to be able to quickly determine how to replace/move a

On 01/21/10 20:42, Jan Sjodin wrote: >>> Imo, a loop is simply a special kind of region, so a "filter" is perhaps the way to >>> go if you are interested in loops. Regions containing loops will have to be inspected >>> using the PST. >> >> Except loops that have multiple exits. they are not necessarily (single >> entry single exit) region, if

Last time I asked here about superblocks (which we were using in the first version of ThreadSanitizer instrumentation) Tobias Grosser has suggested to use RegionInfo: did you have a look at the RegionInfo pass? It currently detects some kind of refinded SESE regions. I use them in Polly and as far as I know the Intel OpenCL SDK also uses them in some way. It is not SEME, but it may

On 01/13/10 00:56, Jan Sjodin wrote: > Why not use the "standard" algorithm for detecting SESE-regions and building a program structure tree? > It should handle everything you want. It also becomes much simpler to specify a connected SESE-region > by entry/exit edges, while a disconnected region is specified by entry/exit blocks. Only defining regions on > blocks is not

On 01/08/10 14:20, ether wrote: > sorry that i forgot to change the subjuect > > > hi all, Hi ether, now a kind of more complete answer. > On 2010-1-7 0:11, John Mosby wrote: >> In LLVM we could add support for generalized CFG regions and >> RegionPasses. A region is a part of the CFG. The only information we >> have is, that it has one entry and one exit, this

Greetings, We present “Machine Function Splitter”, a codegen optimization pass which splits functions into hot and cold parts. This pass leverages the basic block sections feature recently introduced in LLVM from the Propeller project. The pass targets functions with profile coverage, identifies cold blocks and moves them to a separate section. The linker groups all cold blocks across functions

Hi everyone, Some Intel processors have a newly disclosed vulnerability named Load Value Injection. One pager on Load Value Injection: https://software.intel.com/security-software-guidance/software-guidance/load-value-injection Deep dive on Load Value Injection: https://software.intel.com/security-software-guidance/insights/deep-dive-load-value-injection I wrote this compiler pass that can

Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael, and others, I'd like to add my view (and a proposal) to this discussion and I apologize directly for doing this so late*. I also want to apologize because this email is long, contains various technical details and also argumentations that might need more justification. However, I am happy to provide further information (and/or examples) to explain my views if

Dear Community, I would like to summarize my work till date for GSoC 2016. Till the current phase of my project, I have mostly focused on developing the necessary infrastructure to use analysis results from Polly in LLVM. Initial plan as mentioned in the proposal: For the first month:- 1. Decouple ScopInfo pass from Polly’s pass chain and provide capability to create SCoP(Static

The existing lifetime start/end is not very well defined (by spec, or by code) in what it means, so you could have nested lifetime markers if you wanted. If you made the spec well-defined, they would be meaningful (for loops, etc). There are a number of open bugs/complaints about lifetime markers and the fact that the scope is not well defined (the spec says "This intrinsic indicates that

I have installed OCFS2 on two nodes SuSE 10. Seems all works superb and nice from the first sight. But, /dev/sda ocfs2 rac1 is not sharing through net (port 7777) with rac0. On both nodes I have 500Mb /dev/sda disks that are mounted (and are ocfs2). But they did not share the content with each other (files and folders in it). So when I am creating the file in one node I am expecting to

On 01/13/10 05:09, Jan Sjodin wrote: > Hi Tobias > >> In general this approach saves a preliminary pass that has to insert new > >> bbs, to generate these edges. As we do not have to modify the CFG other >> passes like dominance information are still valid, and we do not have to >> create a lot of auxiliary bbs, to be able to detect all regions. This >>

>Exceptions >All eh pads are grouped together regardless of their coldness and are part of the original function. There are outstanding issues with splitting eh pads if they reside in separate sections in the binary. This remains as part of future work. Can you elaborate more on the outstanding issues with splitting eh pads? From my dip into the unwind map in gcc_except_table the