search for: bpy

Hi, extractRangeChecksFromBranch uses BranchProbabilityInfo to decide whether its worth trying the InductiveRangeCheckElimination transformation. For the following example: void split() { for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { if (i < 99) do_something() else do_something_else() } } But the reported BPI is reported as 50/50 to whether do_something will be called, but we

Recently I was looking into porting IRCE loop pass into the new pass manager and stumbled on a problem. The problem is due to the existing hard dependency of IRCE on BranchProbability analysis. If I understand it right, in a new pass manager there are only two ways for loop analysis to ask for the result of an "outer" (function/module-level) analysis:   - get it from a predefined

Adding Maxim On Apr 9, 2018, at 10:06 AM, Sam Parker via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Hi, extractRangeChecksFromBranch uses BranchProbabilityInfo to decide whether its worth trying the InductiveRangeCheckElimination transformation. For the following example: void split() { for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { if (i < 99)

Am 13.06.2020 um 13:47 schrieb Michael Keuter: Hi > Try "sip show peer <peername>" for a phone. So: mobile phone: bpi*CLI> sip show peer 0049177xxxxxxx * Name : 0049177xxxxxxx Description : Secret : <Set> MD5Secret : <Not set> Remote Secret: <Not set> Context : default Record On feature : automon

Am 23.06.2020 09:28, schrieb Marek Greško: Hi > if you need clampmss then it is highly probable there is a PMTU > discovery problem. The clampmss does not work for UDP. Is there a way to check if I have this problem? > I probably counted the size incorrectly. So you are able to ping with > size 1464 and not with 1466. How about trying same ping sizes from the > internet towards

Hi Alok, On 16/07/12 12:41, #ALOK PRAKASH# wrote: > I have been using the Profile.pl and the related passes and > optimizations for about 4 years now. With every new release lately, the > support for the profile scripts and their framework seemed to be > downgrading. Hence, I used my own tiny one line fixes to keep them > working. I offered to send these small patches to keep these

So the call used Alaw as Codec. > Am 13.06.2020 um 17:23 schrieb Luca Bertoncello <lucabert at lucabert.de>: > > Am 13.06.2020 um 13:47 schrieb Michael Keuter: > > Hi > >> Try "sip show peer <peername>" for a phone. > > So: > > mobile phone: > bpi*CLI> sip show peer 0049177xxxxxxx > > > > > * Name :

Am 13.06.2020 09:30, schrieb Luca Bertoncello: Hi again (again) I noticed right now another strange detail... I made a call using my mobile phone (connected to the Asterisk). The quality was top... Maybe is the problem in a codec used from our phones at homes? Could someone suggest me how to check the codec used by my mobile phone and the codec used by the phones at home? Thanks Luca

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 12:58 AM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> wrote: > > > On 3/2/19 2:38 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > > Here's a sketch of the proposed approach for just one pass (but imagine > more) > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D58845 > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:54 PM Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

Hi Chandler and Alastair, I have been using the Profile.pl and the related passes and optimizations for about 4 years now. With every new release lately, the support for the profile scripts and their framework seemed to be downgrading. Hence, I used my own tiny one line fixes to keep them working. I offered to send these small patches to keep these scripts working, to the LLVM dev so that others

On 3/4/19 10:49 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com > <mailto:yamauchi at google.com>> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 12:58 AM Fedor Sergeev > <fedor.sergeev at azul.com <mailto:fedor.sergeev at azul.com>> wrote: > > > > On 3/2/19 2:38 AM,

Hello Alastair, Yeah like I said, I was not aware of the new profile framework being developed. Interestingly BPI and BFI didnt turn up in any searches either. Anyway, I will take a look at them and see how they differ from the existing tools. Profile.pl is understandably a very simple script, but it does make it easier to see some preliminary profile results and identity the hot portions of a

Overall seems fine to me. On 3/11/19 8:12 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > Here's a revised approach based on the discussion: > > - Cache PSI right after the profile summary in the IR is written in > the pass pipeline. This would avoid the need to insert > RequireAnalysisPass for PSI before each non-module pass that needs it. > PSI can be technically invalidated but unlikely

Here's a sketch of the proposed approach for just one pass (but imagine more) https://reviews.llvm.org/D58845 On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:54 PM Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 2/28/19 12:47 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi all, > > To implement more profile-guided optimizations, we’d like to use > ProfileSummaryInfo

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Alastair Murray <alastairmurray42 at gmail.com > wrote: > Hi Chandler, > > I'm a GSoC student working on profiling support (mentor CC'ed). I'm no > stranger to the issues with the current system: my original proposal was > written without knowledge of the limitations. This is why this list > hasn't heard much from me yet.

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 PM Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer < aschwaighofer at apple.com> wrote: > The LoopVectorizer depends on LCSSA and LoopSimplify. Both are loop > passes. We will have to make them also available as utility functions. Yuck. We still need to fix these at least, but that's much better than teaching *all* the loop passes to preserve BPI and BFI. -------------- next

Hello, this is a correct response: >From 62.156.246.57 (62.156.246.57) icmp_seq=1 Frag needed and DF set (mtu = 1492) So PMTU discovery is working. No problem here. You got correct message to lower the packet size from 62.156.246.57. This is probably the last hop before your site. Marek 2020-06-23 9:40 GMT+02:00, Luca Bertoncello <lucabert at lucabert.de>: > Am 23.06.2020 09:28,

Hi, people. Two days ago, I sent to this list a little toy for exploring polynomiographs (yet, the mathematical formulas were not polynomials anymore, so the name is not really appropriate). After studying R calls, expressions and functions a bit more, I gave myself the homework of producing an animation out of my recent toy. The resulting animation, and also the sources, are available at:

On 3/14/19 2:04 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:37 PM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com > <mailto:fedor.sergeev at azul.com>> wrote: > >> >> - Add a new proxy ModuleAnalysisManagerLoopProxy for a loop pass >> to be able to get to the ModuleAnalysisManager in one step and >> PSI through it. >