search for: broach

...well, indeed > they might, who can say? Dragonegg does already get a small amount of gcc > visibility already, since I submit gcc patches for dragonegg issues from time > to time, but as far as I know no gcc developers ever tried it. > > Ciao, > > Duncan. Duncan, I'll broach the topic on gcc at gcc.gnu.org and see what the responses are. Why can't dragon-egg live in both places and be re-merged regularly? It is in a rather odd position of straddling two projects. If the FSF gcc developers want to keep dragonegg over in LLVM's repository only, at least the discu...

...n say?  Dragonegg does already get a small amount of gcc >> visibility already, since I submit gcc patches for dragonegg issues from time >> to time, but as far as I know no gcc developers ever tried it. >> >> Ciao, >> >> Duncan. > > Duncan, >   I'll broach the topic on gcc at gcc.gnu.org and see what the > responses are. Why can't dragon-egg live in both places and > be re-merged regularly? Re-merging it regularly sounds like it would require extra work beyond what Duncan's already doing to maintain it. Please don't suggest other p...

On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: >> >> Duncan, >> I'll broach the topic on gcc at gcc.gnu.org and see what the >> responses are. Why can't dragon-egg live in both places and >> be re-merged regularly? > > Re-merging it regularly sounds like it would require extra work beyond > what Duncan's already doing to maintain it. Please do...

Hello all, I've found an old post (November 2016) http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107006.html which discussed debug information for optimized code. At the end of that discussion, Adrian broached the interest in making -O1 only enable optimizations. I see in the code ( *clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp*, in function *getOptimizationLevel*) that *-Og* option is equivalent to *-O1*. Does this mean any progress on making *-O1* the GCC's *-Og*? If not, would someone kindly tell m...

...:35 AM To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [llvm-dev] Debuggability of -O1 level Hello all, I've found an old post (November 2016) http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107006.html which discussed debug information for optimized code. At the end of that discussion, Adrian broached the interest in making -O1 only enable optimizations. I see in the code (clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp, in function getOptimizationLevel) that -Og option is equivalent to -O1. Does this mean any progress on making -O1 the GCC's -Og? If not, would someone kindly tell me what is hol...

...ev] Debuggability of -O1 level > > > > Hello all, > > > > I've found an old post (November 2016) http://lists.llvm.org/ > pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107006.html which discussed debug > information for optimized code. At the end of that discussion, Adrian > broached the interest in making -O1 only enable optimizations. I see in > the code (*clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp*, in function > *getOptimizationLevel*) that *-Og* option is equivalent to *-O1*. Does > this mean any progress on making *-O1* the GCC's *-Og*? If not, would > so...

...[llvm-dev] Debuggability of -O1 level > > > > Hello all, > > > > I've found an old post (November 2016) http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107006.html which discussed debug information for optimized code. At the end of that discussion, Adrian broached the interest in making -O1 only enable optimizations. I see in the code (clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp, in function getOptimizationLevel) that -Og option is equivalent to -O1. Does this mean any progress on making -O1 the GCC's -Og? If not, would someone kindly tell me what is hol...

I''ve run in to an issue that I''m not sure how to address. Basically, I''m building queries with occur_default Search::BooleanClause::Occur::MUST, and using the StandardAnalyzer which does stop filtering. The stop filtering is working beautifully on the indexing side. The problem is that when the query parser parses through a query with a stop word in it, say

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 22:22, Chris Lattner <clattner at google.com> wrote: > Including a bunch of content, eg a full langref doc: > https://github.com/tensorflow/mlir/blob/master/g3doc/LangRef.md Thanks Chris, that looks awesome! This one could perhaps be improved with time: https://github.com/tensorflow/mlir/blob/master/g3doc/ConversionToLLVMDialect.md Which I think was Hal's

Is there any way to pursuade markdown to create HTML link anchor targets? -- Make April 15 just another day, visit http://fairtax.org

Hi, I''m back. :-) Alex and a few others have expressed concerns about the legal implications of forming a tiger team. Maybe the term "tiger team" doesn''t officially represent what we meant. But I don''t mind redefining established terms if I feel like it :-) What we here call a "tiger team" is a team of people that try to beat the bad guys to

...> > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > I've found an old post (November 2016) http://lists.llvm.org/ > pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107006.html which discussed debug > information for optimized code. At the end of that discussion, Adrian > broached the interest in making -O1 only enable optimizations. I see in the > code (clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp, in function > getOptimizationLevel) that -Og option is equivalent to -O1. Does this mean > any progress on making -O1 the GCC's -Og? If not, would someone kindly tell...

Hi Jack, >>> Is there a timeline for when dragonegg might be >>> merged into gcc (4.6 perhaps)? I ask because FSF gcc >>> has allowed code in as technology previews before. >>> For instance, graphite really wasn't that usable in >>> gcc 4.4 and produced wrong code in the Polyhedron >>> 2005 benchmarks until gcc 4.5. So as long as it

I''m confused. Wasn''t threading fixed in 1.8.6, negating the need for fastthread? Why is fastthread still a requirement of Mongrel? Just curious. :)

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 04:14:17PM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Jack, > > > Is there a timeline for when dragonegg might be > > merged into gcc (4.6 perhaps)? I ask because FSF gcc > > has allowed code in as technology previews before. > > For instance, graphite really wasn't that usable in > > gcc 4.4 and produced wrong code in the Polyhedron >

Hi; I posted this to the R-help last week, but there was no resolution.. Could anybody provide an idea, or alternatively direct me to another resource that might have ideas? -- I'm running R (ver. 2.10.1; installed as an administrator; running as an administrator) on Windows 7 64-bit, and R is having trouble accessing help files and browsing URL's: > ?sum starting httpd help server

...seemed fine, but hadn't looked at more complicated cases. > To be clear: I have not yet experimented with any of this, so I'm not > saying this is a deal breaker. A well-engineered "demanded elements" > analysis may very well be good enough in practice. But since we > broached the subject, I wanted to mention this challenge. (I'm > currently side stepping it by not using built-in vector instructions > but instead intrinsics that treat vl as magic extra state.) > >> This could be part of lowering, or maybe a separate IR pass, rather than ISel. >&g...

Hi, > On 6 Jun 2018, at 17:36, David A. Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > > Graham Hunter via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > >>> Ok, now I understand what you're getting at. A ConstantExpr would >>> encapsulate this computation. We alreay have "non-static-constant" >>> values for ConstantExpr like sizeof and

Hi all, I fear this discussion will quickly devolve into a recursive flame- fest, but it needs to be broached, so here we go. Note that I kind of think this is more of dev topic than users, but I want to make sure everyone knows the conversation is happening and can easily participate. This is also likely to be the first of a series of conversations I''ll be starting to try to paper ove...

Has anyone programmed condition indexes in R? I know that there is a function for variance inflation factors available in the car package; however, Belsley (1991) Conditioning Diagnostics (Wiley) notes that there are several weaknesses of VIFs: e.g. 1) High VIFs are sufficient but not necessary conditions for collinearity 2) VIFs don't diagnose the number of collinearities and 3) No one has