search for: bundling

I asked this question earlier and did recieve an answer but I am not sure Ifully understood the answer as I am getting all sorts of errors when trying to implement. Basically I want to add a layer to the path for my files. I have the following set up in my model class: file_column :image, :store_dir => :dynamic_dir def dynamic_dir

Hi, I can''t get breakpointer to work on locomotive. Pretty sure it used to work... Any ideas?? Jeroen jeroen$ ruby script/breakpointer /Applications/Locomotive/Bundles/rails-1.0.0-max.bundle/Contents/Resources/ports/lib/ruby/1.8/drb/drb.rb:828:in `getaddrinfo'': getaddrinfo: No address associated with nodename (SocketError) from

One of our developers is getting a weird error from attachment_fu and/or rmagick on OSX. And even weirder because he''s used attachment_fu and rmagick on other projects without difficulty. This all works fine on debian/ubuntu. See the stack trace below. Any suggestions? Btw, the code that''s blowing up is retrieving the attachment_fu info. The presence of image_science in

Here''s my case: Using a link_to popup window to show a related help file of an element on a page. The problem: Window pops up perfectly, but refuses to carryover @instance variables in the controller that I referenced in the link_to command. The tests: - I have the right controller/class, because it renders a specific template, which is what it does. - I have the right template/view,

Whatever I do to try to connect including trying different ISPs, I get the same errors, here they are: Errno::ECONNREFUSED in Events#send_my_email Connection refused - connect(2) Application Trace | Framework Trace | Full Trace /Applications/Locomotive/Bundles/rails-0.14.1-min.bundle/Contents/ Resources/ports/lib/ruby/1.8/net/protocol.rb:83:in `initialize''

Machine Instruction Bundle in LLVM Hi all, There have been quite a bit of discussions about adding machine instruction bundle to support VLIW targets. I have been pondering what the right representation should be and what kind of impact it might have on the LLVM code generator. I believe I have a fairly good plan now and would like to share with the LLVM community. Design Criteria 1. The

...dles pass? == However there is a number of remaining questions/confusion: The RFC indicates that the finalization step is done as a separate pass at the end of the register allocation pipeline. In fact a FinalizeMachineBundles pass exists but is not used by anyone. There is no in-tree target doing bundling before register allocation, the one out of tree target I am aware of finalizes bundles immediate after constructing them and is not using the separate pass. In fact I am not sure why you would even wait with the finalization and do it in a separate pass rather than doing it immediately after formi...

Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- # ./configure configure.sh: Configuring rsync 3.0.1 checking build system type... hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 checking host system type... hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 checking target system type... hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 checking for gcc... no checking for cc... cc checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out

...instruction is added in front of the bundle. A > copy of all register/regmask machine operands is added to this header > instruction. Internal reads inside the bundle are marked as such. This step is > called finalization of a bundle. That RFC was written before instructions had their own bundling flags. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2011-December/045906.html > The system works because the default basic block iterator moves from bundle to > bundle skipping the instructions inside the bundle. Iterating over the operands > will only give us the operands of the BUNDLE inst...

Hi Evan, I just read your proposal and the following discussion for VLIW support and want to share my experience of writing a VLIW back-end for LLVM. I would not integrate the packetizer into the register allocator super class since it would reduce the flexibility for the back-end developer to add some optimization passes after the packetizer. Instead, I would add the packetizer as a separate

...s very well. In general, I want the RA to preserve bundles as well as to be able to model the constraint presented above in the thread. Should I fix the rematerialization code to look for the right instruction into the current bundle ? What's the direction you are following about instruction bundling ? We would like to follow llvm evolutions and preserve the core implementations as much as possible. Thanks in advance, Ivan

. and yes, one more thing. On some architectures it might be desirable to know the _order_ of instructions in the packet. That is a bit trickier.. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum. From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Evan Cheng Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 2:40 PM To: LLVM Dev Subject: [LLVMdev]

...n front of the bundle. A >> copy of all register/regmask machine operands is added to this header >> instruction. Internal reads inside the bundle are marked as such. This step is >> called finalization of a bundle. > > That RFC was written before instructions had their own bundling flags. > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2011-December/045906.html <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2011-December/045906.html> This appears to be from the same thread that proposes the flags and the bundling scheme I linked to above. However I don't see any ind...

On Dec 2, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Sergei Larin wrote: > … and yes, one more thing. On some architectures it might be desirable to know the _order_ of instructions in the packet. That is a bit trickier…. Isn't that just the order of the instructions in the list? I don't see anything that prevents getting the order of instructions. It might require iterator over MIs in the packet. But for

Evan, I will need to comprehend it better, but one small comment right away. Did we not discuss one more option for bundle implementation - global cycle ID. We would add an unsigned int field to MI definition representing "global scheduling cycle". All MIs with the same global cycle value belong to one group/packet. Zero means unscheduled MI. That is light weight,

...preserve bundles as well as to be able to > model the constraint presented above in the thread. > Should I fix the rematerialization code to look for the right > instruction into the current bundle ? > What's the direction you are following about instruction bundling ? Remat is a problem because it breaks the abstraction of treating whole bundles as instructions. There are two issues: - Should we rematerialize the full bundle defining a value, or should we try to dig out the 'real' def inside the bundle? The second option is the pref...

Jakob, > The intention was to identify code that may have been converted from > the old style a little too quickly. I wanted to avoid bugs from a > global s/setIsInsideBundle/bundleWithPred/g search and replace. This is a good intent. Maybe a bit temporal but sound nevertheless. > finalizeBundle is calling 'MIBundleBuilder Bundle(MBB, FirstMI, > LastMI)' which ought to

Hi all In another thread I complain about an error I get after trying to get Globalize working. http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/51988#new Now I want to ask you, if anybody of you has ever got Globalize working? I have done exactly what''s written in the (absolutely much too short) tutorial of its wiki... http://globalize.diluvia.net/wiki ...and I''m very frustrated that no

...eral, I want the RA to preserve bundles as well as to be able to > model the constraint presented above in the thread. > Should I fix the rematerialization code to look for the right > instruction into the current bundle ? > What's the direction you are following about instruction bundling ? Remat is a problem because it breaks the abstraction of treating whole bundles as instructions. There are two issues: - Should we rematerialize the full bundle defining a value, or should we try to dig out the 'real' def inside the bundle? - After remat, we run dead code elimination in...

Hi Quentin and llvm-dev, I've got a regalloc-related question that you might have an opinion or answer about. In our out-of-tree target we've been doing some bundling before register allocation for quite some time now, and last night a new problem popped up. What the fix should be depends on if this bundle is legal or not: BUNDLE %vreg39<imp-def,dead> * %vreg39:hiAcc<def> = mv_ar16_ar16_lo16In32 %vreg37 [...] %vreg39 isn't...