search for: alky

On 29 Apr 2006 20:38:58 -0600, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat.com> wrote: > >>>>> "Archie" == Archie Cobbs <archie at dellroad.org> writes: > > >> In the JIT, devirtualization looks doable, though somewhat fiddly. At > >> least, that is true for straightforward things like calls to methods > >> in final classes, or calls to

I can't explain why 700 msecs aren't enough to avoid timeouts in 100 Mbps networks, but my tests verify it, so I'm writing to the list to request that you increase the default timeo to at least 30, or to 600 which is the default for `mount -t nfs`. How to reproduce: 1) Cabling: server <=> 100 Mbps switch <=> client Alternatively, one can use a 1000 Mbps switch and

<algorithm> works too. On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:09:21 -0500 Alkis Evlogimenos <alkis at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 09:43, Paolo Invernizzi wrote: > > Jeff Cohen wrote: > > > > >But I compiled that under vc7.1 as it was! > > > > > > > > ;-(( > > > > Probably is an implicid includes, but I'm using the

In case anyone's interested, I followed up in the linux-nfs mailing list: https://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=156887818618861&w=2 Thanks, Alkis On 9/15/19 10:51 AM, Alkis Georgopoulos wrote: > I think I got it. > > Both nfsmount and `mount -t nfs` now default to rsize/wsize = 1 MB. > By lowering this to 32K, all issues are gone, even with the default > timeo=7. And

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: >> Has it been hooked up to a JVM? If so, how and which ones? > > I think the point of llvm-java was to avoid a JVM. That is, it converts llvm-java is the JVM. > either Java source or Java bytecode into equivalent LLVM bytecode. I llvm-java only supports input from Java bytecode. > think the big thing lacking so far are the Java

>>>>> "Archie" == Archie Cobbs <archie at dellroad.org> writes: >> In the JIT, devirtualization looks doable, though somewhat fiddly. At >> least, that is true for straightforward things like calls to methods >> in final classes, or calls to methods on objects allocated with 'new' >> in the current function. (The latter could be

Alkis Evlogimenos wrote: > On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 04:56, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > Hello! > > Is there an (semi)automatic way to save registers used by a function? For > > example, on my target I have to store ar0-ar4 and gr0-gr4, gr5, gr6. For > > now I just emit huge prologue code to push them all to stack -- even if > > they are not modified at all. > > >

On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 09:43, Paolo Invernizzi wrote: > Jeff Cohen wrote: > > >But I compiled that under vc7.1 as it was! > > > > > ;-(( > > Probably is an implicid includes, but I'm using the STLPort standard > library for LLVM (because it's not possible to use hash_map and hash_set > of microsoft) std::remove is in <algorithm> --

It seems that these two classes are the same... Maybe they should be merged into 1 class? -- Alkis

On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 11:47 -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: > Alkis Evlogimenos wrote: > > It seems that these two classes are the same... Maybe they should be > > merged into 1 class? > > > I think you're looking at something old. MutexLocker doesn't exist any more. llvm/Support/ThreadSupport.h is not generated anymore? -- Alkis

Chris Lattner wrote: >> I think the point of llvm-java was to avoid a JVM. That is, it converts > > llvm-java is the JVM. > >> either Java source or Java bytecode into equivalent LLVM bytecode. I > > llvm-java only supports input from Java bytecode. > >> think the big thing lacking so far are the Java library and support for > > llvm-java uses

News flash: LLVM 1.2 is now available! -------------------------------------- LLVM 1.2 is the result of ~3 months of hard work by many people in the LLVM community. It contains a bunch of new features, produces substantially better code, and has many bug fixes over the 1.1 release. A detailed list of new and improved features are included in the 1.2 release notes:

News flash: LLVM 1.2 is now available! -------------------------------------- LLVM 1.2 is the result of ~3 months of hard work by many people in the LLVM community. It contains a bunch of new features, produces substantially better code, and has many bug fixes over the 1.1 release. A detailed list of new and improved features are included in the 1.2 release notes:

Jeff Cohen wrote: >But I compiled that under vc7.1 as it was! > > ;-(( Probably is an implicid includes, but I'm using the STLPort standard library for LLVM (because it's not possible to use hash_map and hash_set of microsoft) cl /nologo /TP /EHsc /GR /Zi /Yd /D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS /DHAVE__FINITE_IN_FLOAT_H /DHAVE__ISNAN_IN_FLOAT_H /DHAVE_WINDOWS_H

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Anshu Dasgupta wrote: > CodeGen/RegAlloc/PhysRegAlloc.cpp implements a graph coloring register > allocator for the Sparc back end. It requests target machine register > information via a call to getRegInfo() which returns a class > TargetRegInfo containing the required information. For the x86 target > machine, this interface has not been implemented. Is an

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 04:06:27PM +0200, Finn S Andersen wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: > > >I think that we should switch to C constants in this case. Can you try > >#include <math.h> and use HUGE_VAL instead? > > > It works: > > [finna at coplin11 ~/test]$ cat tst.cpp > #include <limits> > #include <iostream> > #include

Alkis Evlogimenos wrote: >As for CVS, I am not sure this should be fixed because there is >really no LLVM bug here :-) > > > No, you are right. But perhaps it is worth it to mention the problem somewhere in the documentation, because there appear to be many installations with this problem (I've found 3: my home installation, my work and the nearest university), and it is

On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 05:26, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Alkis Evlogimenos wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 04:56, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > > Hello! > > > Is there an (semi)automatic way to save registers used by a function? For > > > example, on my target I have to store ar0-ar4 and gr0-gr4, gr5, gr6. For > > > now I just emit huge prologue code to push

On Thu, 2004-07-08 at 07:07, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Vladimir Prus wrote: > > Vladimir Prus wrote: > > > The above-mentioned test contains this: > > > > > > long B53 = - (1LL << 53); > > > > > > strictly speaking, this is not correct code. The C standard says about > > > shift: "if the value of the first operator is ... or

Alkis Evlogimenos wrote: > > But the test still has a problem ;-) > > > > printf("%ld\n", Arg / (1LL << 4)); > > > > Again, the passed value is long long, and format specifier is '%ld'. What > > about the attached patch? > > I think testL has another problem. It takes a long argument which in C I > think is a 4-byte int,