Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "_less".
Did you mean:
less
2010 Mar 28
2
[LLVMdev] Which floating-point comparison?
I notice llvm provides both ordered and unordered variants of
floating-point comparison. Which of these is the right one to use by
default? I suppose the two criteria would be, in order of importance:
1. Which is more efficient (more directly maps to typical hardware)?
2. Which is more familiar (more like the way C and Fortran do it)?
2010 Mar 28
0
[LLVMdev] Which floating-point comparison?
...ure this out by looking at the output of llc:
$ cat test.ll
define i1 @less(double %x, double %y) nounwind readnone {
entry:
%0 = fcmp ult double %x, %y ; <i1> [#uses=1]
ret i1 %0
}
$ Debug/bin/llc <test.ll
.section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions
.globl _less
.align 4, 0x90
_less: ## @less
## BB#0: ## %entry
movsd 4(%esp), %xmm0
ucomisd 12(%esp), %xmm0
sbbb %al, %al
andb $1, %al
ret
> 2. Which is more familiar (more like the way C and Fortran do it)?
You can use http://llvm.org/d...
2007 Aug 30
0
[ufs-discuss] statvfs change
...9;' from fs_blkfree
> - an alloc attempt when fs_blkfree is zero must fail
>
>are met, we''re standards compliant, aren''t we ?
Yes.
>
>The standard, for statvfs(), doesn''t make any statement about what happens
>on attempts to allocate/free amounts _less than_ fs_frsize bytes, except
>that "if I release N bytes I must be able to allocate N bytes again - to
>the same file".
Yes, but it is about extending by blocks; not by bytes. (Even on a
filesystem that doesn''t do any compression, you can grow files whose
size is not a...
2007 Aug 27
17
statvfs change
An issue was found with the netBeans installer where
the installation was failing on a large ZFS filesystem.
This resulted in CR 6560644 (zfs statvfs f_frsize needs work).
The issue is that large filesystems can cause EOVERFLOW on
statvfs() calls. This behavior is documented in the statvfs(2)
man page, but I think we can do better.
The problem was initially reported against ZFS, and my first
fix