search for: _latest

...all, Chandler, Owen, and I have written up a proposal for a new memory model and atomic intrinsics in LLVM, which will make it possible to support Java and the upcoming C++0x standard. The proposed changes to the LangRef are at <http://docs.google.com/View?docID=ddb4mhxz_22dz5g98dd&revision=_latest>, and a rationale for some of the more surprising changes is at <http://docs.google.com/View?docID=ddb4mhxz_24gh4ksvgh&revision=_latest>. You're the first group to see this, so it's likely to need some significant fixes based on your feedback. Let us know what you think. Thank...

..., and I have written up a proposal for a new memory > model and atomic intrinsics in LLVM, which will make it possible to > support Java and the upcoming C++0x standard. The proposed changes to > the LangRef are at > <http://docs.google.com/View?docID=ddb4mhxz_22dz5g98dd&revision=_latest > >, > and a rationale for some of the more surprising changes is at > <http://docs.google.com/View?docID=ddb4mhxz_24gh4ksvgh&revision=_latest > >. >From a first glance, it looks like double-wide compare exchange is missing. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABA_problem...

..., and I have written up a proposal for a new memory > model and atomic intrinsics in LLVM, which will make it possible to > support Java and the upcoming C++0x standard. The proposed changes to > the LangRef are at > <http://docs.google.com/View?docID=ddb4mhxz_22dz5g98dd&revision=_latest>, > and a rationale for some of the more surprising changes is at > <http://docs.google.com/View?docID=ddb4mhxz_24gh4ksvgh&revision=_latest>. > You're the first group to see this, so it's likely to need some > significant fixes based on your feedback. Let us know wh...

..., and I have written up a proposal for a new memory > model and atomic intrinsics in LLVM, which will make it possible to > support Java and the upcoming C++0x standard. The proposed changes to > the LangRef are at > <http://docs.google.com/View?docID=ddb4mhxz_22dz5g98dd&revision=_latest>, I just started reading this. Should I interpret "may not" as "must not" throughout this document? The language of this proposal needs to be much clearer. "may not" can be interpreted in at least two different, opposite ways. -Dave

...) because of seeing more than one writes is a much more precise behavior than undefined behavior. It helps to understanding the specification, if this point can be made more precisely, which is consistent with the discussion from https://docs.google.com/View?docID=ddb4mhxz_24gh4ksvgh&revision=_latest > > -Eli > -- Jianzhou

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > The current memory model section ends with the following discussions: > > "Note that in cases where none of the atomic intrinsics are used, this > model places only one restriction on IR transformations on top of what > is required for single-threaded execution: introducing a store to a

...try and restart progress on it. Attached are two patches; the first adds a section to LangRef with just the memory model, without directly changing the documentation or implementation of atomic intrinsics. This mostly comes from https://docs.google.com/View?docID=ddb4mhxz_22dz5g98dd&revision=_latest, but it's been modified a bit, so please look at the attached version. The second fixes the one place I know of where LLVM violates that proposed memory model. I would appreciate any reviews (primarily for the LangRef bits; I'm reasonably confident the patch to LICM is correct). There was...

..., and I have written up a proposal for a new memory > model and atomic intrinsics in LLVM, which will make it possible to > support Java and the upcoming C++0x standard. The proposed changes to > the LangRef are at > <http://docs.google.com/View?docID=ddb4mhxz_22dz5g98dd&revision=_latest>, What's a "trap" and "trap value?" Is it some C++0X or Java thing? It needs to be defined. >From the rationale, "trap" sounds like the IA64 trap value. That's too target-specific for a proposal like this. Why not just say that the use of an uninitia...

...s on it. > > Attached are two patches; the first adds a section to LangRef with > just the memory model, without directly changing the documentation or > implementation of atomic intrinsics.  This mostly comes from > https://docs.google.com/View?docID=ddb4mhxz_22dz5g98dd&revision=_latest, > but it's been modified a bit, so please look at the attached version. > The second fixes the one place I know of where LLVM violates that > proposed memory model. > > I would appreciate any reviews (primarily for the LangRef bits; I'm > reasonably confident the patch to...

Hi, I'm using Asterisk 1.2.18 on a Debian Etch box. I've noticed a very strange fact which causes a bad prob. When I get an inbound call, I make 4 phones ring at the same time, one is a Snom while others are Gigaset C450IP with _latest firmware_. When I get a call and answer with the Gigaset, a second call going to voicemail makes the first call received on the gigaset C450IP stop audio (it seems the call does not drop). This does not happen if I answer the first call with the snom or with Siemens using older firmware or when...

...s on it. > > Attached are two patches; the first adds a section to LangRef with > just the memory model, without directly changing the documentation or > implementation of atomic intrinsics.  This mostly comes from > https://docs.google.com/View?docID=ddb4mhxz_22dz5g98dd&revision=_latest, > but it's been modified a bit, so please look at the attached version. > The second fixes the one place I know of where LLVM violates that > proposed memory model. > > I would appreciate any reviews (primarily for the LangRef bits; I'm > reasonably confident the patch to...

...s on it. > > Attached are two patches; the first adds a section to LangRef with > just the memory model, without directly changing the documentation or > implementation of atomic intrinsics.  This mostly comes from > https://docs.google.com/View?docID=ddb4mhxz_22dz5g98dd&revision=_latest, > but it's been modified a bit, so please look at the attached version. > The second fixes the one place I know of where LLVM violates that > proposed memory model. > > I would appreciate any reviews (primarily for the LangRef bits; I'm > reasonably confident the patch to...

...s on it. > > Attached are two patches; the first adds a section to LangRef with > just the memory model, without directly changing the documentation or > implementation of atomic intrinsics.  This mostly comes from > https://docs.google.com/View?docID=ddb4mhxz_22dz5g98dd&revision=_latest, > but it's been modified a bit, so please look at the attached version. > The second fixes the one place I know of where LLVM violates that > proposed memory model. > > I would appreciate any reviews (primarily for the LangRef bits; I'm > reasonably confident the patch to...