search for: bailouts

...port this direction Thanks for the support. >but are there actually any real world workloads where gather/scatter scalarisation would be worth it, on any micro-architecture? If we don’t have examples and the compile time cost is non-negligible then I think we’d still like to keep the early >bailouts in some form.’ It's not like I have specific application code in mind. This all depends on what your code has and how often the emulated code has to kick-in. I'm more than happy to implement HWLegal class, and have early bailout available under the switch. I'm also fine having early ba...

...ection > Thanks for the support. > >> but are there actually any real world workloads where gather/scatter scalarisation would be worth it, on any micro-architecture? If we don’t have examples and the compile time cost is non-negligible then I think we’d still like to keep the early >bailouts in some form.’ > It's not like I have specific application code in mind. This all > depends on what your code has and how often the emulated code has to > kick-in. I'm more than happy to implement HWLegal class, and have > early bailout available under the switch. I'm als...

...ection > Thanks for the support. > >> but are there actually any real world workloads where gather/scatter scalarisation would be worth it, on any micro-architecture? If we don’t have examples and the compile time cost is non-negligible then I think we’d still like to keep the early >bailouts in some form.’ > It's not like I have specific application code in mind. This all depends on what your code has and how often the emulated code has to > kick-in. I'm more than happy to implement HWLegal class, and have early bailout available under the switch. I'm also fine having...

...principal that these are strictly cost model queries, but are there actually any real world workloads where gather/scatter scalarisation would be worth it, on any micro-architecture? If we don’t have examples and the compile time cost is non-negligible then I think we’d still like to keep the early bailouts in some form.’ Amara

All, I'm trying to refactor LoopVectorize such that it has better conformance to VPlan vision going forward (http://www.llvm.org/docs/Proposals/VectorizationPlan.html). All VP*Recipe class definitions are now moved to VPlan.h, and I have a patch under review to move LoopVectorizationPlanner class out of LoopVectorize.cpp (https://reviews.llvm.org/D41420). Next thing I'm working on is

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 05:58:51PM -0500, Clements, James wrote: > James Clement > > Geert Stappers > > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 05:06:41PM -0500, Clements, James wrote: > > > > The screen displays the following: > > > > > > > > PXE Network Boot using IPv4 > > > > .... > > > > Station IP address is 192.168.205.50

Originally on llvm-commits. On May 30, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: >> This is probably fine for now. It's a relatively safe use of SCEVExpander and the least effort approach, but generally I would like to encourage people to solve local rewrite problems with IRBuilder, not SCEVExpander, and build useful utilities for that purpose. Just because you

For an unknown reason both my monitors ended up with a corrupted EDID. They both provide VGA and DVI input. The VGA input works fine, while DVI is broken because of the EDID issue. Using these [1] instructions I have been able to read the EDID and fix it. Unfortunately I'm not able to write it back to the eeprom. I always get this message: i2c i2c-1: sendbytes: NAK bailout. This is what I

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 24-07-19 12:28:58, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 09:05:53AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Looks good: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> > > > > > > One comment on a related cleanup: > > > > > >

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:24:26AM +0200, Geert Stappers via Syslinux wrote: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 05:58:51PM -0500, Clements, James wrote: > > > Correct me if I am wrong but if I understand correctly, syslinux.efi is > > what drives the request for ldlinux.e64. Is there a way we can enable > > some debug somehow to see why the request for ldlinux.e64 includes >

Hi Arnold, Nadav, I've been taking a look at the preamble and bailout tests created by the loop vectorizer, and I can't help but feel it could be rather conservative. I'm not a vectorization expert, so I apologise in advance if say something obviously wrong... I'm looking in particular at the overflow check and the trip count computation. From my reading, it goes something like:

On Wed, 30 May 2012 10:04:50 -0700 Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > Originally on llvm-commits. > > On May 30, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > >> This is probably fine for now. It's a relatively safe use of > >> SCEVExpander and the least effort approach, but generally I would > >> like to encourage

HI: Was there a limit of servers which was used as storage in Gluster ? 2009-06-24 eagleeyes ???? gluster-users-request ????? 2009-06-24 03:00:42 ???? gluster-users ??? ??? Gluster-users Digest, Vol 14, Issue 34 Send Gluster-users mailing list submissions to gluster-users at gluster.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60704 Priority: medium Bug ID: 60704 Assignee: nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org Summary: [nouveau, git regression] - I2C PWM fan control broken on nv50 adt7475 on kernels 3.3.x+ QA Contact: xorg-team at lists.x.org Severity: major Classification: Unclassified

On Wed 24-07-19 20:56:17, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 24-07-19 15:08:37, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > Maybe new users have started relying on a new semantic in the meantime, > > > back then, none of the notifier has even started any action in blocking > > > mode on a EAGAIN bailout.

HI: Was there a limit of servers which was used as storage in Gluster ? 2009-06-24 eagleeyes ???? gluster-users-request ????? 2009-06-24 03:00:42 ???? gluster-users ??? ??? Gluster-users Digest, Vol 14, Issue 34 Send Gluster-users mailing list submissions to gluster-users at gluster.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

On Wed 24-07-19 12:28:58, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 09:05:53AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Looks good: > > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> > > > > One comment on a related cleanup: > > > > > list_for_each_entry(mirror, &hmm->mirrors, list) { > > > int rc; > > >

On Wed 24-07-19 15:08:37, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Maybe new users have started relying on a new semantic in the meantime, > > back then, none of the notifier has even started any action in blocking > > mode on a EAGAIN bailout. Most of them simply did trylock early in the > > process and bailed out

Please forgive this off-topic post... I've been on this list since 2005 (over 45k messages in my archive) and this is obviously really not something I normally do. If you have a minute and are feeling generous, please visit http://bailout.chipin.com/ and consider helping me out. Sorry if I've offended or wasted your time, but believe me that you don't feel as bad as I do.

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37000 Summary: Exceeding render target size in xorg.conf breaks everything Product: xorg Version: unspecified Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Driver/nouveau AssignedTo: nouveau