search for: broached

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:22:17PM +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

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:22:17PM +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

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.

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...

...: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 holdi...

...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 > some...

...[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 holdi...

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. >>...

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 over...

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