search for: 1200s

...a15/builds/7198 TableGen changes before that (I checked about 3-4 of them) don't have this problem: r303253: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15/builds/7197 That one in particular actually finishes the whole build in 635s, which is only a bit over 50% of the timeout limit (1200s). So, between r303253 and now, something happened that made full builds significantly slower. Does anyone have any idea what that might have been? Also, has anyone noticed this on other bots? Thanks, Diana

To whom it might concern, The Gesko Ikarus 1200S analog telephone has advanced callerid capabilities. When used with an ATA186, it show the username and the phonenumber of the caller. (or whatever you let * tell it) http://www.gesko.be/idgg004.htm Price is 77 euro something and available with Telec. (NL) Met vriendelijke groet, Pau...

...(I checked about 3-4 of them) don't have >> this problem: >> r303253: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15/builds/7197 >> >> That one in particular actually finishes the whole build in 635s, >> which is only a bit over 50% of the timeout limit (1200s). So, between >> r303253 and now, something happened that made full builds >> significantly slower. Does anyone have any idea what that might have >> been? Also, has anyone noticed this on other bots? >> >> Thanks, >> Diana > > ___________________________...

...of live ranges cause quadratic algorithmic complexity, which is apparently the main reason for the slow-down. I changed the implementation of computeRegUnitInterval() so that it uses a set instead of the array, and in this way managed to reduce the execution time of the computeRegUnitInterval from 1200s down to about 1s. The fix is a bit ugly, however, because I cannot completely switch to the set, since further analyses are more efficient on the array. For that reason, I flush the contents of the set into the array at the end of computeRegUnitInterval. I also had to rewrite various operations on...

...> >>> r303253: >> >>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15/builds/7197 >> >>> >> >>> That one in particular actually finishes the whole build in 635s, >> >>> which is only a bit over 50% of the timeout limit (1200s). So, between >> >>> r303253 and now, something happened that made full builds >> >>> significantly slower. Does anyone have any idea what that might have >> >>> been? Also, has anyone noticed this on other bots? >> >>> >> >>&g...

...>>> this problem: > >>> r303253: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7- > a15/builds/7197 > >>> > >>> That one in particular actually finishes the whole build in 635s, > >>> which is only a bit over 50% of the timeout limit (1200s). So, between > >>> r303253 and now, something happened that made full builds > >>> significantly slower. Does anyone have any idea what that might have > >>> been? Also, has anyone noticed this on other bots? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >...

...gt;>>>>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15/builds/7197 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That one in particular actually finishes the whole build in 635s, >>>>>>> which is only a bit over 50% of the timeout limit (1200s). So, between >>>>>>> r303253 and now, something happened that made full builds >>>>>>> significantly slower. Does anyone have any idea what that might have >>>>>>> been? Also, has anyone noticed this on other bots? >>>>>...

...t;>>>>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15/builds/7197 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That one in particular actually finishes the whole build in 635s, >>>>>>> which is only a bit over 50% of the timeout limit (1200s). So, between >>>>>>> r303253 and now, something happened that made full builds >>>>>>> significantly slower. Does anyone have any idea what that might have >>>>>>> been? Also, has anyone noticed this on other bots? >>>>>...

On Sun, 2 Jun 2024, chribonn at duck.com wrote: > ? # if the charge is less than 75 percent trigger a LB status > ? override.battery.charge.low = 75 > ? # if the remaining charge is less than 1200s (20 minutes) trigger a low battery status > ? override.battery.runtime.low = 1200 > ? # wait 5 minutes for ups to power off > ? override.ups.delay.shutdown = 300 > ? # Could offdelay act as an ovverride for override.ups.delay.shutdown? > ? offdelay = 300 > Is the comment about of...

...nges before that (I checked about 3-4 of them) don't have > this problem: > r303253: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15/builds/7197 > > That one in particular actually finishes the whole build in 635s, > which is only a bit over 50% of the timeout limit (1200s). So, between > r303253 and now, something happened that made full builds > significantly slower. Does anyone have any idea what that might have > been? Also, has anyone noticed this on other bots? > > Thanks, > Diana > > > _______________________________________________...

...harge is less than 75 percent trigger a LB status override.battery.charge.low = 75 # Some drivers reset battery.charge.low to the default value. lowbatt addresses this # See chapter 2.7 in https://rogerprice.org/NUT/ConfigExamples.A5.pdf lowbatt = 75 # if the remaining charge is less than 1200s (20 minutes) trigger a low battery status override.battery.runtime.low = 1200 # Wait 10 minutes before attempting to restart the ups load after a power cut ondelay = 600 # wait 5 minutes for ups to power off override.ups.delay.shutdown = 300 # Could offdelay act as an ovverride for over...

...t; http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15/builds/7197 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That one in particular actually finishes the whole build in 635s, >>>>>>>>> which is only a bit over 50% of the timeout limit (1200s). So, between >>>>>>>>> r303253 and now, something happened that made full builds >>>>>>>>> significantly slower. Does anyone have any idea what that might have >>>>>>>>> been? Also, has anyone noticed this on other bo...

...vm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15/builds/7197> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That one in particular actually finishes the whole build in 635s, >>>>>>>>>> which is only a bit over 50% of the timeout limit (1200s). So, between >>>>>>>>>> r303253 and now, something happened that made full builds >>>>>>>>>> significantly slower. Does anyone have any idea what that might have >>>>>>>>>> been? Also, has anyone noticed this...

...ked about 3-4 of them) don't have >> this problem: >> r303253: >> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15/builds/7197 >> >> That one in particular actually finishes the whole build in 635s, >> which is only a bit over 50% of the timeout limit (1200s). So, between >> r303253 and now, something happened that made full builds >> significantly slower. Does anyone have any idea what that might have >> been? Also, has anyone noticed this on other bots? >> >> Thanks, >> Diana >> >> >> ____________...