search for: 20140718

...1: GPPTR Using Fedora 20 with default Xorg and Intel driver 2.99.911 (from git) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/nouveau/attachments/20140718/a1e80a1c/attachment.html>

...et fast, accurate stack traces. Consider sampling profilers that capture call stacks. Using the unwind tables is disruptively slow to the process under profile. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140718/35a0aed3/attachment.html>

There is CostModel.cpp since LLVM3, I am wondering if anyone can give me an concrete example on how to use this pass to estimate cycles used in a given IR file. Thank you very much. Don

...to view this message or any attachments on a confidential basis, please immediately delete this email and any attachments and notify Intelligent Automation, Inc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140718/735503da/attachment.html>

...alls. Besides that, what other settings are recommended? Changes in MTU? Changes in voice payload ms? Is there a better codec to use? Header compression? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20140718/2e48d8e2/attachment.html>

Is it OK to remove metadata in an optimization pass? The context is patch http://reviews.llvm.org/D4571 which removes loop unrolling hint metadata after using it to avoid unrolling more than the hint suggests. This is a potential problem because loop unrolling can be run more than once. Example: a loop annotated with "#pragma clang loop unroll_count(2)" which adds hint metadata to the

...ArrayRef(const T &OneElt) : Data(&OneElt), Length(1) {} to ArrayRef(T &OneElt) : Data(&OneElt), Length(1) {} Best regards, Andreas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140718/7ac8f807/attachment.html>

..._______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140718/8ee25883/attachment.html>

...ble/openssh-6.6p1.tar.gz Thank you, Jim Keener -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 884 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh-unix-dev/attachments/20140718/18854822/attachment.bin>

...german number) How can I dial international numbers via DAHDI? (in case it matters, my SS7 trunk provider is Telefonica Espa?a) Thanks! Daniel Gonzalez -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20140718/8fdc5c1e/attachment.html>

...ment. -- Best Regards, Rajni Vanza Consultant Technology ------------------------------------------------------- Working On Linux,C/C++,VoIP Technology -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20140718/72ba451f/attachment.html>

When restarting Dovecot 2.2.10 (via atrpms) on RHEL 6, I get the error: Warning: fd limit (ulimit -n) is lower than required under max. load (1024 < 4096), because of default_client_limit # doveconf default_internal_user default_internal_user = dovecot Should dovecot print this warning based on $default_internal_user, or based on root? As root: # ulimit -n 1024 As user dovecot: $ ulimit -n

Hello, I made two flattening transformation filters, one use a switch instruction for the dispatcher, and the other an indirectbranch instruction. Both work well but llc is very time consuming in the second case : 10 minutes for a 500 basic block function, while it takes 10 seconds for the switchcase implementation . The instrumentation of llc shows that most of the time is passed in the Machine

Having a different code path for prologue just for the sanitizers sounds pretty risky to me. That code is already strewn with conditional and modal stuff. Adding another variable to the permutations scares me. Is there really no alternative? Conditional code in the sanitizers that figure things out? LLDB and GDB have a very similar sort of problem for backtraces, including when debug info isn’t

en! my test is : %r1 = call<float> @test.adddiv( <float> %r0, <float>* %p0). since >> but somehow it always fall into INTRINSIC_WO_CHAIN category. (caught it in lowering..) I think it doesn’t have chain in initial DAG. unfortunately the intrinsic “test.adddiv” is defined by me for now. not sure how to make it has a chain. kevin On Jul 18, 2014, at 3:06 PM,

..._______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140718/60249da6/attachment.html>

...ni* *Email:* flazzarini at gmail.com *Phone:* +352 621 314 430 *Blog:* http://www.gefoo.org *LinkedIn:* http://www.linkedin.com/pub/frank-lazzarini/1a/a30/112 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/attachments/20140718/23dd4f14/attachment.htm

...>> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140718/aedddc33/attachment.html>

There seems to be some uncertainty about the use of smart pointers (previously OwningPtr, now std::unique_ptr and std::shared_ptr predominantly) in the LLVM project as a whole, so here's a thread to discuss/clarify/etc the project preferences/direction with regard to smart pointer usage. For some context, see discussions in LLVM r212403 and Clang r213307. The basic question here seems to be

A few weeks ago, I announced the availability of a conversion tool that converts Linux Perf sample profiles to LLVM's sample profiler ( https://github.com/google/autofdo). I have now ported this tool to the LLVM tree, so it can be made available as part of LLVM. I've got a working version, but I still need to massage the code to use LLVM's own libraries (logging, flags, etc) and adapt