search for: ammenable

...upport for NaT bits + check instructions have been popping up on this message thread. Hardware speculation exists solely to support unsafe speculation, in which certain operations need to be reexecuted under certain conditions. It is not something we would ever want to represent in IR. It isn't ammenable to CFG+SSA form. Runtime checking for undefined behavior would be implemented as overflow checks, etc. by the front end. I don't think it's related to unsafe speculation. In other words, I don't see the purpose of a "check/foodtaster" instruction. -Andy -------------- next p...

...+ check instructions have been popping > up on this message thread. Hardware speculation exists solely to > support unsafe speculation, in which certain operations need to be > reexecuted under certain conditions. It is not something we would ever > want to represent in IR. It isn't ammenable to CFG+SSA form. > > Runtime checking for undefined behavior would be implemented as > overflow checks, etc. by the front end. I don't think it's related to > unsafe speculation. In other words, I don't see the purpose of a > "check/foodtaster" instruction. The...

Has anyone really looked at the costs for Astricon. But the hotel costs. $111.00 USD per night.. come on guys give me a break. I will not be staying at that hotel. I can rent a car and stay near the air port for almost half that. In addition from what I have been told their will be no shuttle service from the Airport to the hotel. Anyone else have any input on this? bkw_ PS: I'm going

...ions have been popping >> up on this message thread. Hardware speculation exists solely to >> support unsafe speculation, in which certain operations need to be >> reexecuted under certain conditions. It is not something we would ever >> want to represent in IR. It isn't ammenable to CFG+SSA form. >> >> Runtime checking for undefined behavior would be implemented as >> overflow checks, etc. by the front end. I don't think it's related to >> unsafe speculation. In other words, I don't see the purpose of a >> "check/foodtaster&qu...

...b-passes. A few important things were not made very clear in all the high-level discussion: MI can be very easily extended to represent ISD operations. MachineOperand already handles various heterogenous kinds of operands. Adding EVT/MVT would be straightforward. MI data-structures (like SD) are ammenable to incremental lowering. Target-specific transforms can easily flip opcodes and add operands. Imagine how efficient operation lowering will be in MI--just an en-masse opcode flip. Chris mentioned that we need to be able to mix register class contraints on target instructions with type constraints...

On Dec 5, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Paul Robinson wrote: > (If this thread is becoming tiresome, let me know. This newbie is trying to > understand some of what's going on; clearly you've thought about it way more > than I have, and I can understand if you want to stop thinking about it!) > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > On Dec

On Apr 27, 2013, at 8:10 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > To all, I'm moving on and accepting what appears to be the consensus of the list, for now. > > I want to point out something about this direction that hasn't really come up, but I think deserves some better

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > To all, I'm moving on and accepting what appears to be the consensus of > the list, for now. > I want to point out something about this direction that hasn't really come up, but I think deserves some better discussion. I don't think it should be the basis of a decision one way or the other,

(If this thread is becoming tiresome, let me know. This newbie is trying to understand some of what's going on; clearly you've thought about it way more than I have, and I can understand if you want to stop thinking about it!) On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Paul Robinson wrote: > > > > On Thu,

Has anyone tried using BroadVoice for VSP? I have Asterisk configured for a home office & I've been trying to decide which VoIP provider to go with for a little while now. I had heard you could get sub $.01 calls but I have not found that to be true yet (not saying it's not possible, I just haven't found it!). Also I'm not sure if BV will support multiple lines. Any