search for: unconvinced

...ith more detailed assertions like this, a much larger class of programmer errors can be diagnosed without having to go into the debugger. > > Because the stream is a raw_ostream, LLVM types and values can easily be printed to the stream without having to convert them to string form. I'm unconvinced that this is worth it at all. This is only going to allow you to "avoid going into the debugger" in the most trivial cases. -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110726/886f2e3a/a...

...l at conversis.de> wrote: > I think the problem is that you simply have to draw a distinction > between technology and product. > The rise of the Linux desktop will never happen because Linux is not a > product but a technology and as a result has to be a jack of all trades. I'm unconvinced. True, Chromebooks uses the linux kernel, and thus it qualifies, sorta, as Linux desktop. But this is something analogous to OS X using a FOSS kernel and some other BSD stuff, but the bulk of it is proprietary. Maybe Chrome isn't quite that proprietary, but it's not free either. And Chrome...

...tions like this, a much larger class of programmer > errors can be diagnosed without having to go into the debugger. > > Because the stream is a raw_ostream, LLVM types and values can easily be > printed to the stream without having to convert them to string form. > > > I'm unconvinced that this is worth it at all. This is only going to allow > you to "avoid going into the debugger" in the most trivial cases. > > Question - are you opposed to having a general "assertion with streamed arguments" facility in llvm/Support at all, or are you merely oppos...

...ce of traps, the select form should never even be created in the first place. > The point about pattern complexity is an inherent difficulty w/any > intermediate IR.  We do quite well pattern matching complicate > constructs in existing backends - x86 SIMD comes to mind - and I'm > unconvinced that predication is somehow inherently more difficult. Our experience tells us otherwise. Intrinsics, and ultimately first-class IR support is the most reasonable way to get correctness and performance. How should we translate this to get predicated instructions out? for (int i=...) { if(...

Here's an example of how this would be used: In the constructor for ConstantVector, there's an assert: assert(C->getType() == T->getElementType() && "Initializer for vector element doesn't match vector element type!"); I would change this to: ASSERT_STRM(C->getType() == T->getElementType(), "Initializer for vector element "

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > [Sorry for chiming in so late.] > > I understand why a straightforward metadata scheme won't work here, > but have you considered an alternate scheme that works in the > following way: > > - We add a MD node called !nosynch that lists a set of

...e: >> I think the problem is that you simply have to draw a distinction >> between technology and product. >> The rise of the Linux desktop will never happen because Linux is not a >> product but a technology and as a result has to be a jack of all trades. > > I'm unconvinced. True, Chromebooks uses the linux kernel, and thus it > qualifies, sorta, as Linux desktop. But this is something analogous to > OS X using a FOSS kernel and some other BSD stuff, but the bulk of it > is proprietary. Maybe Chrome isn't quite that proprietary, but it's > not free...

Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> writes: >> Masking has advantages even in the default non-trapping fp >> environment: It is not uncommon for fp hardware to be slow on >> denormal values. If you take the operation + select approach, >> spurious computation on denomals could occur, slowing down the >> program. > Why?  If you're backend has

I''m posting this here because I''m sure that there are a few Rails fans here who are stuck in Java land at work and willing to consider Trails as a compromise. ( Web version here: http://weblog.masukomi.org/index.pl/view/trails ) First let me set the stage I love [Rails](http://www.rubyonrails.com) but I work in a Java shop. There are two of us here but I''m the only one

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> I''ve gleaned a lot of good advice from reading this group and I''m hoping for more

On Jul 28, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Talin wrote: >> Because the stream is a raw_ostream, LLVM types and values can easily be printed to the stream without having to convert them to string form. > > I'm unconvinced that this is worth it at all. This is only going to allow you to "avoid going into the debugger" in the most trivial cases. > > Question - are you opposed to having a general "assertion with streamed arguments" facility in llvm/Support at all, or are you merely opposed t...

...es. Isn't that exactly what we want? Did you look in enough detail to determine that these optimizations *should* have applied? I'd be pretty interested to know what we disable for the others, because the the null thing is the only guarantee I knew about that we made. Also, I'm pretty unconvinced optimization should be our first priority here. That smacks of the untenable (IMO) option 2. Whatever we do I want a program with well-defined semantics at the end. Starting from a known good position and enabling desirable optimizations that we have decided are valid is a significantly better path...

Keir, It''s a resending patch for the timeout mechanism to deal with the shared interrupt issue for vt-d enabled hvm guest. We modify the patch following your comments last time and make some other small fix: 1) We don''t touch the locking around the hvm_dpci_eoi(). 2) Remove the HZ from the TIME_OUT_PERIOD macro which may confuse others. 3) Add some

I thought that Rails was supposed to allow development of an application *without* having to restart the webserver? I know this works in WEBRick ... but this doesn''t seem to be the case in Apache (linux). Am I missing something here, or does this only work in webrick? I suppose one should argue that for development you should just use webrick, but this wasn''t an option for me

-- Juergen Gross Principal Developer IP SW OS6 Telephone: +49 (0) 89 636 47950 Fujitsu Siemens Computers e-mail: juergen.gross@fujitsu-siemens.com Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 Internet: www.fujitsu-siemens.com D-81739 Muenchen Company details: www.fujitsu-siemens.com/imprint.html _______________________________________________

...gt;> > -- that people want to move forward with the scalable types. >> >> >> I agree with David. We should move forward with native support for >> scalable types. > > > Sorry I haven't been as available as usual for the past few weeks, but FWIW, I still am unconvinced that scalable vector types belong in the IR. > > I think this adds complexity to LLVM's IR to serve a niche use case without proven benefit to a broad spectrum of hardware or software. I think the complexity is significant and will be a net drag on all parts of the IR and IR-level transfo...

On 3/15/19 10:58 AM, David Greene wrote: > Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com> writes: > >> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 15:30, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> I've talked with a number of people about this as well, and I think that >>> I understand the objections. I'm happy that ARM followed through with

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:18 AM David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > I think it would be useful for the discussion to have a clear threat model that this intends to defend against and a rough analysis of the security benefits that this is believed to bring. I view this as being even more about a ROP defense. Dealing with spill slots is, IMO, a separate issue, more

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:59 AM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 4/19/2018 11:57 AM, Friedman, Eli via cfe-dev wrote: > > On 4/19/2018 11:48 AM, Manoj Gupta via llvm-dev wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:54 PM Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:02 PM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at

To what Reid said, I'm not really worried about impact on the middle end of any of this. We can handle the code changes, etc. I agree with Chris about what we're trading off here: On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:48 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I’d argue the other side of it. The quality of the code is higher if we > have invariants (like