search for: branchings

class BranchesController < ApplicationController def branch @branch = Branch.new (params[:branch]) branch_back = @branch.*branch* end end in the model have one *branch.rb* class Branch def branch end end In the view have one branches folder, also have the branch.html.erb in that folder. <%= form_for(@branch) do |f| %> <%end%> *routes.rb* * * match

On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:01 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > Chad Colgur <colgur at gmail.com> writes: > >> Will the 2.9 branch be reflected in the git mirrors? > > I really, really hope this is the case. The official git mirror > documentation says it is only trunk because the current branching scheme > in not suitable for git. I don't understand why that would be

Hi Anton, On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > Sebastian, > >> I just saw that the git branch remotes/origin/release_31 has been created >> for llvm.  Unfortunately it is missing the right context: right now I can only >> see 11 patches in that branch with the last patch having no parent. >> >> Could

Hi, I would like to transform unpredictable conditional branches with a small body into cmov instructions to reduce branch miss penalty. LLVM generates cmov/setcc instructions when SelectInst is used. The idea is to transform regular branches into selects, when that is possible and profitable. However this needs branch prediction info, and it seems LLVM doesn't provide that AFAICT. Could

Vedant Kumar asked me to post my design thoughts concerning branch coverage at llvm-dev since there is general interest. My team at Texas Instruments is developing an embedded ARM C/C++ compiler with LLVM. I would like to enhance LLVM's code coverage capability with branch condition coverage (for C/C++), similar to GCC/GCOV support for branch coverage. This is useful for TI, and I think

Hi, Alan Thanks for making it clear. But I was more confused now :( I tested on a simple program and used both gcov and lcov to get branch coverage. The code and build commands as below: *Example simple.cc* #include <string> // If not comment this line, the branch coverage won't reach to 100% // #include <iostream> int main(int argc, const char* argv[]) { std::string str =

Hi Martin, On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 14:10, Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote: > $ git branch --list > * master > martino By default "git branch" only lists local branches. "git branch -a" will list all of them, including (for me) "remotes/origin/release_70". If you just type "git checkout release_70" git will

On 11/13/12 12:37 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Nov 13, 2012, at 7:52 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > >>> John, it was not my intention to disrupt your work in any way. >>> However, branching for release is a bit of a grey area and I >>> have made a judgment call to branch SAFECode in sync with llvm. >>> This could have been a

Hi, Alan Really very excited to receive your email and sorry to be slow replying, it has been exceptionally busy over the last few days ;( Your explanation made the problem clear to me. So gcov branch coverage should be called condition coverage and clang region coverage is branch coverage in fact(also known as *decision/C1*), right? And llvm/clang will support all the following coverage

> I recommend that you stick with the release_19 branch of both llvm and > llvm-poolalloc. I and others are actively using these branches, so > llvm-poolalloc bug fixes will most likely be made to this branch in > addition to mainline CVS for the forseeable future. The release_19 > branch of llvm-poolalloc is designed to always work with the release_19 > branch of LLVM, which

Hi, According to the webpage [1], 6.1 has been branched on April 5. However, I noticed that there is a tag called RELENG_6_1, not a branch called RELENG_6_1. For example, sys/conf/newvers.sh [2], rev 1.69.2.11, is on RELENG_6 branch with tag RELENG_6_1_BP and RELENG_6_1. It is a bit strange for me. At least, we have RELENG_X_Y branch before and RELENG_X_Y_BP tag. Is there any special reason that

Hi, llvm/clang experts I need to get the branch coverage for some testing code. But i found gcov can't give a expected coverage which may count some 'hidden branch' in (See stackoverflow answer <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42003783/lcov-gcov-branch-coverage-with-c-producing-branches-all-over-the-place>). Instead, I turn to use clang and the 'source-based code

On 10/04/2014 16:32, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 06:47:19PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Trying the 3.4.1 branch, I get following tests failing: >> LLVM :: CodeGen/X86/2009-06-05-VZextByteShort.ll >> LLVM :: CodeGen/X86/fma4-intrinsics-x86_64.ll >> LLVM :: CodeGen/X86/fp-fast.ll >> LLVM ::

On 11 May 2017 at 18:30, Michael Clark via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I note that on your bug that you have stated that the branch is faster than > the conditional move. Faster code is a side effect of the fix in this > particular case. On the contrary: the faster code is pretty much the only reason this can happen before the rest of the FENV support lands.

Tanya M. Lattner wrote: >>I recommend that you stick with the release_19 branch of both llvm and >>llvm-poolalloc. I and others are actively using these branches, so >>llvm-poolalloc bug fixes will most likely be made to this branch in >>addition to mainline CVS for the forseeable future. The release_19 >>branch of llvm-poolalloc is designed to always work with the

The proposed mitigation for variant 2 of CVE-2017-5715, “branch target injection”, is to send all indirect branches through an instruction sequence known as a retpoline. Because the purpose of a retpoline is to prevent attacker-controlled speculation, we also end up losing the benefits of benign speculation, which can lead to a measurable loss of performance. We can regain some of those benefits

( I don't know if it's allowed to ask such question, if not, please remind me. ) I know Intel implemented several static branch prediction mechanisms these years: * 80486 age: Always-not-take * Pentium4 age: Backwards Taken/Forwards Not-Taken * PM, Core2: Didn't use static prediction, randomly depending on what happens to be in corresponding BTB entry , according to agner's

Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> writes: > It doesn't work because git-svn assumes that all of your branches > begin at the same position in the SVN tree, i.e. llvm/branches/*. The > problem is that we have some branches in llvm/branches/*, some in > llvm/branches/Apple/*, some in llvm/branches/ggrief/*, etc. The end > result is that git-svn gets horribly confused.

On Mar 29, 2008, at 6:02 AM, Török Edwin wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to transform unpredictable conditional branches with a > small body into cmov instructions to reduce branch miss penalty. > LLVM generates cmov/setcc instructions when SelectInst is used. The > idea > is to transform regular branches into selects, when that is possible > and > profitable. LLVM

+ Vedant Hi Hal, thanks. I apologize if my answers aren't as thorough as you would like; what I'm proposing is simply an extension to the existing infrastructure, so it would be enabled automatically as part of code coverage. Mapping of branch regions would be done in CoverageMappingGen and instrumented using the same profiling instrumentation mechanism under