search for: atomize

clang+llvm-3.8.0-rc3-x86_64-linux-gnu-debian8.tar.xz (sha1sum: 2dedc6136d7cfbac8348652c543887964d92393c) Native: All ok Cross compiling to MIPS: All ok clang+llvm-3.8.0-rc3-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz (sha1sum: f286149dbb2ea7e194c5c3719b6cded476f6e65f) All ok (aside from non-regression failures in check-all). There were two kinds of check-all failure: * mips64 sanitizers. Not a regression since

Dear testers, Release Candidate 3 has just been tagged [1]. Please build, test, and upload to the sftp. If there are no regressions from previous release candidates, this will be the last release candidate before the final release. Release notes can still go into the branch. Thanks again for all your work! Hans [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-branch-commits/2016-February/009866.html

Hi, I've tagged 3.8.1-rc1, testers can begin testing. -Tom

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > clang+llvm-3.8.0-rc3-x86_64-linux-gnu-debian8.tar.xz (sha1sum: 2dedc6136d7cfbac8348652c543887964d92393c) > Native: All ok > Cross compiling to MIPS: All ok > > clang+llvm-3.8.0-rc3-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz (sha1sum: f286149dbb2ea7e194c5c3719b6cded476f6e65f) > All ok

The CentOS Atomic SIG has released an updated version (https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Atomic/Download) of CentOS Atomic Host (7.1708), a lean operating system designed to run Docker containers, built from standard CentOS 7 RPMs, and tracking the component versions included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux Atomic Host. This release, which is based on the RHEL 7.4 source code

I've run into some issues with the current atom object model that I would like to fix. The current 4 atoms are not expressive enough. We need to be able to serialize a larger set of atoms, many of which are format specific. The set of common atoms (shared between all formats) should be the set that the resolver requires to work. SharedLibrary is not included in this (by looking at the source

The documentation for is.atomic and is.recursive is inconsistent with their behavior in R 2.9.1 Windows. ? is.atomic ???? 'is.atomic' returns 'TRUE' if 'x' is an atomic vector (or 'NULL') ???? and 'FALSE' otherwise. ???? ... ???? 'is.atomic' is true for the atomic vector types ('"logical"', ???? '"integer"',

Right now, the atomics implementation in clang is a bit of a mess. It has three basically completely distinct code-paths: There's the legacy __sync_* builtins, which clang lowers directly to atomic IR instructions. Then, the llvm atomic IR instructions themselves can sometimes emit libcalls to __sync_* library functions (which are basically undocumented, and users are often responsible for

Last week, the CentOS Atomic SIG released an updated version (https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Atomic/Download) of CentOS Atomic Host (7.1707), a lean operating system designed to run Docker containers, built from standard CentOS 7 RPMs, and tracking the component versions included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux Atomic Host. The release, which came as part of the monthly CentOS release

I don't have much of substance to add, but I will say that I like the proposal (I too prefer Alternative A). When adding C11 atomic support for hexagon, I found it surprising that support for the __sync_* was implemented completely differently than the C11 atomics. On 1/27/2016 1:55 PM, James Knight via llvm-dev wrote: > Right now, the atomics implementation in clang is a bit of a

An updated version of CentOS Atomic Host (tree version 7.1706), is now available. [1] CentOS Atomic Host is a lean operating system designed to run Docker containers, built from standard CentOS 7 RPMs, and tracking the component versions included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux Atomic Host. [1] https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Atomic/Download CentOS Atomic Host is available as a

On 10/30/2013 12:53 AM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: >> I am trying to implement support for handling section groups in lld. >> >> There are two ways of figuring out section groups with ELF. >> >> a) Sections with SHF_GROUP property >> b) .gnu.linkonce sections (the signature identified by the name of the section)

On Jul 18, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Clow, Marshall wrote: > On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: >> On Jul 18, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: >>> I've run into some issues with the current atom object model that I >>> would like to fix. >>> >>> The current 4 atoms are not expressive enough. We need to be able to >>>

declare i8 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i8.p0i8( i8* <ptr>, i8 <delta> ) declare i16 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i16.p0i16( i16* <ptr>, i16 <delta> ) declare i32 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i32.p0i32( i32* <ptr>, i32 <delta> ) declare i64 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i64.p0i64( i64* <ptr>, i64 <delta> ) declare i8 @llvm.atomic.load.min.i8.p0i8( i8* <ptr>, i8

Any plans for using Atom with rails. I saw the "Typo" project is using MoveableType, Blogger, ... but not Atom. It seems Atom is not part of ActionWebService. Has anyone done any work with Atom and Rails ? Thanks for your answers, Gaspard

Hi llvm-dev, I read about volatile and atomic modifiers in the docs[1], and I feel they make sense to me individually. However, I noticed that store[2] and load[3] instructions can be marked as both volatile and atomic. What's the use case for using both volatile and atomic on an instruction? Isn't it the case that atomic implies volatile? I guess it isn't, but I don't understand

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2012, at 4:25 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > >> So I was looking into handling ELF groups today in the Atom model. It >> appears that we will need to add the concept of a group to the atom >> model directly, as modeling it with references fails to capture some >>

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ben via llvm-dev Craig" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 9:41:06 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Adding sanity to the Atomics implementation > > > I don't have much of substance to add, but I will say that I like the > proposal (I too prefer Alternative

I support Nick's option too. I think handling groups is another example of using follow on references. One question is how does an atom outside the group refer to the main atom here ? Will not garbage collection cleanup the main atom/signature atom because there are no references ? Thanks - Shankar Easwaran On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote:

Hello, Submitting a bug report for Samba crashing on occasion when copying files (also submitted a bug report w/Debian). Package: samba Version: 4.0.13+dfsg-1 While copying files from Linux(SAMBA) -> to a Windows 7 host using Debian Testing (x86_64) w/ distribution's Samba version (4.0.13+dfsg-1): Cores: # ls -ltr *smb* -rw------- 1 root root 2764800 Nov 10 12:30