search for: 1.11s

On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Jon Harrop <jonathandeanharrop at googlemail.com> wrote: > I think your new OCaml tutorials and the original C++ ones are absolutely > brilliant! Thanks Jon. I'm sorry I missed this message. Now that you've had some more experience with llvm, would you be interested in adding to the doc some performance and GC stuff? I haven't personally

On Monday 31 March 2008 09:56:45 Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > The full series of the ocaml tutorial is done! You can find it here: > > http://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/ > > Please let me know if you have any comments, bugs, suggestions, and > etc. I'll send a mail to the ocaml mailing list tomorrow to drum up > some interest from the other ocaml users. I think your new OCaml

Just figured I'd mention that CVS supports now THREAD extension. I also did a bit of benchmarking using a folder with 4685 mails (evolution mailing list): dovecot+mbox: - 0.59s user 0.01s system 98% cpu 0.608 total - malloc() memory usage 45072 -> 825685 dovecot+maildir: - 0.60s user 0.17s system 98% cpu 0.780 total - malloc() memory usage: 45003 -> 825480 Meaning it takes almost

I've done some measurements on this. The test program I have just calls Function::Create(), F->setPersonalityFn(), and then F->eraseFromParent() in a loop 2^20 times. Results: pre-patch --- min: 1.10s max: 1.13s avg: 1.11s post-patch --- min: 1.26s max: 1.35s avg: 1.29s So we expect to lose 0.2 seconds per 1 million functions (with personality functions) in a

Here is a WIP patch as promised: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13829 It uses a hungoff uselist to store optional data as needed. Some early objections from Duncan: - An extra one-time malloc() is required to set personality functions. - We get and set personality functions frequently. This patch introduces a level of indirection which slows the common case down. Is this overhead

On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 14:21 -0300, Elias Pereira wrote: > Hello?Andrew, > > 1. What is the explanation for the fact that when the log level is > set to 5 or 7, the NT_STATUS_IO_TIMEOUT error does not appear, but > when it is at the default log level, it does? I don't have an explanation for this, sorry. ?Have you looked into the 1.5 second queries, what is sending them and