search for: 474k

Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "474k".

Did you mean: 474
2012 Oct 10
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH / PROPOSAL] bitcode encoding that is ~15% smaller for large bitcode files...
Yes, I had about 133K hits for INST_PHI with a negative value, out of 136K hits of any "INST_.*" with a negative valued operand. Overall there were 474K INST_PHI and 12 million "INST_.*" in my tests. - Jan On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Rafael EspĂ­ndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > This looks good to me. > > Just one question, you found that forward references are only common > with phi operands, so i...
2012 Oct 10
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH / PROPOSAL] bitcode encoding that is ~15% smaller for large bitcode files...
On 10 October 2012 15:15, Jan Voung <jvoung at chromium.org> wrote: > Yes, I had about 133K hits for INST_PHI with a negative value, out of 136K > hits of any "INST_.*" with a negative valued operand. > > Overall there were 474K INST_PHI and 12 million "INST_.*" in my tests. Cool! Thanks again for working on this! > - Jan Cheers, Rafael
2012 Oct 08
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH / PROPOSAL] bitcode encoding that is ~15% smaller for large bitcode files...
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Rafael EspĂ­ndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com > wrote: > > +static void EmitSignedInt64(SmallVectorImpl<uint64_t> &Vals, uint64_t V) { > > Please start function names with a lower case letter. > > Done -- changed this function and most of the "pushValue" functions. I left PushValueAndType alone since that is an
2012 Oct 10
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH / PROPOSAL] bitcode encoding that is ~15% smaller for large bitcode files...
This looks good to me. Just one question, you found that forward references are only common with phi operands, so it is not profitable to use a signed representation for other operands, right? Cheers, Rafael
2012 Oct 11
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH / PROPOSAL] bitcode encoding that is ~15% smaller for large bitcode files...
...l.com> wrote: > On 10 October 2012 15:15, Jan Voung <jvoung at chromium.org> wrote: > > Yes, I had about 133K hits for INST_PHI with a negative value, out of > 136K > > hits of any "INST_.*" with a negative valued operand. > > > > Overall there were 474K INST_PHI and 12 million "INST_.*" in my tests. > > Cool! > > Thanks again for working on this! > > > - Jan > > Cheers, > Rafael > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/a...
2006 May 12
1
zfs panic when unpacking open solaris source
...1.99G /export/home/cjg home/cjg at month_02 1.91M - 1.97G - home/cjg at 2006-02-02-07:53:46 2.38M - 1.97G - home/cjg at minute_43 433K - 1.97G - home/cjg at minute_44 492K - 1.97G - home/cjg at minute_45 409K - 1.97G - home/cjg at minute_46 474K - 1.97G - home/cjg at minute_47 314K - 1.97G - home/cjg at minute_48 314K - 1.97G - home/cjg at minute_49 0 - 1.97G - home/cjg at minute_50 0 - 1.97G - home/cjg at minute_51 0 - 1.97G - home/cjg at minute_52 253K - 1.9...