search for: 3ish

...to use it in the morning (and the most memory- > intensive part runs last). > I'll ping the guy who's in charge of the sync and ask him when it's done. Right now, the copy to the Apple internal mirror is done at 2AM PDT. From your email, I suspect that the sync is done around 3ish. Though maybe it's somehow dependent upon when I update the mirror?? Unfortunately, because we now have people working on LLVM around the clock (hi Anton! :-) ), pretty much anytime for the sync is going to be a problem for someone. The good news is that this problem will be obviated i...

...Cohen wrote: > Bill Wendling wrote: > >>> I'll ping the guy who's in charge of the sync and ask him when it's >>> done. Right now, the copy to the Apple internal mirror is done at 2AM >>> PDT. From your email, I suspect that the sync is done around 3ish. >>> Though maybe it's somehow dependent upon when I update the mirror?? >>> >>> Unfortunately, because we now have people working on LLVM around the >>> clock (hi Anton! :-) ), pretty much anytime for the sync is going to >>> be a problem for som...

...ning (and the most >> memory-intensive part runs last). >> > I'll ping the guy who's in charge of the sync and ask him when it's > done. Right now, the copy to the Apple internal mirror is done at 2AM > PDT. From your email, I suspect that the sync is done around 3ish. > Though maybe it's somehow dependent upon when I update the mirror?? > > Unfortunately, because we now have people working on LLVM around the > clock (hi Anton! :-) ), pretty much anytime for the sync is going to > be a problem for someone. The good news is that this problem...

...ritten in JavaScript using WinDbg specific debugger commands) and DWARF debug info tests (which would be written in whatever / using GDB style commands) That sounds like an unfortunate direction. Can you explain why it wouldn't be possible to write a wrapper (in JavaScript) that interprets the 3ish gdb commands used by the tests in terms of WinDbg? Similar to how LLDB is supported? -- adrian > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:34 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com <mailto:paul.robinson at sony.com>> wrote: > As executable tests, they fail spectacularly in a cross-b...

...ng wrote: >> >> >>>> I'll ping the guy who's in charge of the sync and ask him when it's >>>> done. Right now, the copy to the Apple internal mirror is done at 2AM >>>> PDT. From your email, I suspect that the sync is done around 3ish. >>>> Though maybe it's somehow dependent upon when I update the mirror?? >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, because we now have people working on LLVM around the >>>> clock (hi Anton! :-) ), pretty much anytime for the sync is going to >>>>...

...JavaScript using WinDbg specific debugger commands) and DWARF debug info tests (which would be written in whatever / using GDB style commands) > > That sounds like an unfortunate direction. Can you explain why it wouldn't be possible to write a wrapper (in JavaScript) that interprets the 3ish gdb commands used by the tests in terms of WinDbg? Similar to how LLDB is supported? > > > I can think of a couple of reasons: > > 1) We're already going to need entirely different runlines. clang and clang-cl don't use the same command line options, or for that matter ev...

...flag to their desired value whenever they call into the JIT, > rather than relying on a default. That choice then propagates through > the whole recursive tree of codegens, without affecting the next tree. > > Note that I'm using getPointerToFunction as an abbreviation for the > 3ish public functions that'll need to take this option. The documentation should also be updated (http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#threading) to reflect what one needs to do, to ensure thread-safe JITing. Also does every JIT target support non-lazy JITing now? See PR4816, last time I c...

...4 indicate it is intended to be much simpler to setup than Samba 3, and the simplicity will eliminate dependence on outdated web pages. This suggests I should not trust those pages, but there doesn't seem to be any overview available for the current Samba And apparently there is an old (Samba 3ish) and new (ADish) system available, and I'm not sure which I should use. In priority order, my goals are 1. Act as a file server. I'm currently running samba 3 to do so, and had pretty poor performance attempting to do a Windows backup from a Windows 7 client to it. "Poor" mea...

...ey call into the JIT, >>> rather than relying on a default. That choice then propagates through >>> the whole recursive tree of codegens, without affecting the next tree. >>> >>> Note that I'm using getPointerToFunction as an abbreviation for the >>> 3ish public functions that'll need to take this option. >>> >> The documentation should also be updated >> (http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#threading) to reflect what >> one needs to do, >> to ensure thread-safe JITing. >> > > Than...

...ed value whenever they call into the JIT, >> rather than relying on a default. That choice then propagates through >> the whole recursive tree of codegens, without affecting the next tree. >> >> Note that I'm using getPointerToFunction as an abbreviation for the >> 3ish public functions that'll need to take this option. > > The documentation should also be updated > (http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#threading) to reflect what > one needs to do, > to ensure thread-safe JITing. Thanks for that reminder. I've updated it in the patch...

...ommands) and DWARF debug info tests (which would >> be written in whatever / using GDB style commands) >> >> >> That sounds like an unfortunate direction. Can you explain why it >> wouldn't be possible to write a wrapper (in JavaScript) that interprets the >> 3ish gdb commands used by the tests in terms of WinDbg? Similar to how LLDB >> is supported? >> >> > I can think of a couple of reasons: > > 1) We're already going to need entirely different runlines. clang and > clang-cl don't use the same command line options, or...

On May 5, 2007, at 6:44 AM, Jeff Cohen wrote: > Bill wrote: >> The LLVM-GCC anonymous mirror should be updated now. Let me know if >> this happens again. >> >> -bw > > It's still taking over an hour for rsync to occur. > I can try to see if they will move the rsync to a better time. Unfortunately, I don't have much control over that end of it. Would

Bill Wendling wrote: > On May 5, 2007, at 6:44 AM, Jeff Cohen wrote: > >> Bill wrote: >>> The LLVM-GCC anonymous mirror should be updated now. Let me know if >>> this happens again. >>> >>> -bw >> >> It's still taking over an hour for rsync to occur. >> > I can try to see if they will move the rsync to a better time. >

...ser is forced to set the flag to their desired value whenever they call into the JIT, rather than relying on a default. That choice then propagates through the whole recursive tree of codegens, without affecting the next tree. Note that I'm using getPointerToFunction as an abbreviation for the 3ish public functions that'll need to take this option. >> Thanks all for the decision! >> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> I have no objection to Chris' proposal. >>> >>&gt...

...ended to be > much simpler to setup than Samba 3, and the simplicity will eliminate > dependence on outdated web pages. This suggests I should not trust those > pages, but there doesn't seem to be any overview available for the current > Samba And apparently there is an old (Samba 3ish) and new (ADish) system > available, and I'm not sure which I should use. > > In priority order, my goals are > 1. Act as a file server. I'm currently running samba 3 to do so, and had > pretty poor performance attempting to do a Windows backup from a Windows 7 > client...

...kable through a module at runtime, or even, for thread-safety reasons, as a parameter to each call that cares about it. The command line route will work for our development, but I don't think we'll be able to release without a better story. (Luckily, we don't have anything scheduled for 3ish months, and we're happy to send you patches and pull them into our tree before an official LLVM release if you don't have this done before we need it.) > Break on line 1148 of JITEmitter.cpp. The debugging message will tell > you the address and size of the function that was jitted....

Hi Jeffrey, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > Cool, I'll start implementing it. > Great! Thanks. Just to clarify things: on my end, it doesn't really matter what is the default behavior, as long as vmkit can continue to have the existing behavior of lazy compilation. With Chris' solution, I was wondering how you would implement the getPointerToFunction{Eager, Lazy} functions when

Run with -debug-only=jit. Break on line 1148 of JITEmitter.cpp. The debugging message will tell you the address and size of the function that was jitted. You can then tell gdb to disassemble the code. On Mar 26, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > Hi all. I'm working on the recently-announced unladen-swallow project, > and I'm having a bit of trouble getting gdb to

As executable tests, they fail spectacularly in a cross-build environment. And you need some sort of debugger with GDB-like commands and output (or have some front end to your debugger that imitates that) in order to run them. I think they would need to stay in a separate project because of those requirements. --paulr From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of David

Hi all. I'm working on the recently-announced unladen-swallow project, and I'm having a bit of trouble getting gdb to step into functions I've compiled with LLVM's JIT compiler. The attached a_module.ll is the module I produce from compiling def foo(r): for i in r: pass I'm JIT-compiling and running foo() with: typedef PyObject *(*NativeFunction)(PyFrameObject *);