search for: burdening

> On Jul 27, 2016, at 11:03 AM, Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > Beyond all that I want to point out that the git multi-repository story is basically the same thing we have today with SVN except for the absence of a

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Beyond all that I want to point out that the git multi-repository story is > basically the same thing we have today with SVN except for the absence of a > monotonically increasing number that corresponds across repositories. While > admittedly you do get a linear history with

I'm removing old targets that no longer appear actively maintained, to reduce the burden for target-independent codegen maintenance. Does anyone object to the removal of the Alpha backend? Dan

I'm removing old targets that no longer appear actively maintained, to reduce the burden for target-independent codegen maintenance. Does anyone object to the removal of the Sparc backend? Dan

I have read http://www.theora.org/theorafaq.html#42 This put quite a burden onto the Windows-user - a burden that most Windows-users will not be able to lift. Has anyone made a webpage with a link to a theora-file that automatically (or with a few clicks on Accept/OK) installs the needed codecs on a unmodified Windows machine? (The links to theora-files on www.theora.org does not do this, which

On Oct 25, 2011, at 9:29 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> writes: > >> I'm removing old targets that no longer appear actively maintained, >> to reduce the burden for target-independent codegen maintenance. >> >> Does anyone object to the removal of the Alpha backend? > > It would be a shame to lose it. Alpha is an

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote: > > Chris, > > What I notice in your latest e-mail -- and I don't know if this is > intentional, so sorry if I'm reading too much into it -- is that the > language has switched from "an unwarranted and unacceptable burden" to > "a burden”: I consider it unwarranted and

Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> writes: > I'm removing old targets that no longer appear actively maintained, > to reduce the burden for target-independent codegen maintenance. > > Does anyone object to the removal of the Alpha backend? It would be a shame to lose it. Alpha is an excellent example of a good RISC-style ISA. There's at least one simulator out there

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Morten Ofstad <morten at hue.no> wrote: > Actually, adding a LLVM_EXPORT macro would be positive for other > environments, because you can then build LLVM > as a shared library with -fvisibility=hidden and use LLVM_EXPORT to only > make public symbols visible. There are several > advantages to this, as noted here: > I agree, this would be

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote: > >>> The decision of whether or not to include these projects >>> affects only read-write consumers of these projects -- of which there >>> are relatively few people. >> >> Maybe there are few, but the impact is non-insignificant. Also I think the opinions of the

Hi, I used to rsync a /home with thousands of home directories every night, although only a hundred or so would be used on a typical day, and many of them have not been used for ages. This became too large a burden on the poor old destination server, so I switched to a script that uses "find -ctime -7" on the source to select recently used homes first, and then rsyncs only those. (A

> On Aug 21, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > On 08/17/2016 03:05 PM, Mehdi Amini wrote: >> >>> On Aug 17, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Zhuravlyov, Konstantin <Konstantin.Zhuravlyov at amd.com <mailto:Konstantin.Zhuravlyov at amd.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >Why not going with a metadata attachment directly

> On Feb 16, 2016, at 1:14 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 15 Feb 2016, at 23:12, Andrew Trick via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Prior to FTL, JavaScriptCore had no dependence on the LLVM project. Maintaining a dependence on an external project naturally has integration overhead. > > And the fact that

> What is taking time, scanning inodes on the destination, or recopying the entire > backup because of either source read speed, target write speed or a slow interconnect > between them? It takes hours to traverse all these directories with loads of small files on the backup server. That is the limiting factor. Not even copying: just checking the timestamp and size of the old copies.

>> I've built a pass to split critical edges of machine functions, and I have >> to insert new basic blocks. Some of them will have MBB->begin() == >> MBB->end(). > > Ah, machine basic blocks are different. They *are* allowed to be empty. > I would like to build an "insertNoOp" and add it to MRegisterInfo. I would have one for each target. For the

If you don't use BBVectorize at all, you can ignore this. Hal suggested this in a thread in 2014: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2014-November/079091.html None objected then, and I don't think any new uses have arisen so I plan to just remove it. It is causing maintenance burden, complexity, and is a set of features I'd rather not port to the new PM. Just an FYI email to

David, While I understand the rationale here, I vote for all or nothing. A middle ground seems to me to hold none of the advantages and all of the disadvantages! James On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 19:30, David Chisnall via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 27 Jul 2016, at 19:03, Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > What

Actually, adding a LLVM_EXPORT macro would be positive for other environments, because you can then build LLVM as a shared library with -fvisibility=hidden and use LLVM_EXPORT to only make public symbols visible. There are several advantages to this, as noted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Visibility From: Reid Kleckner Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 6:21 PM To: Peng Cheng Cc: LLVMdev at

Personally, every machine I work with only has Python 2.7. Justin is correct that there is a non-trivial amount of effort to convert the bots. Python 3 is wonderful. But, a Python 3 dependency seems like one burden that could be avoided. We have already made that trade-off in the past, for example by only using standard python packages, so there is less/nothing to pip install when getting

Instead of putting the burden on the back-ends to implement special lowering code, why not implement code in the legalizer that would automatically sign extend them to the next largest power of 2 integer if the specific integer types were not supported. This would then remove the need of the back-ends to implement anything as LLVM would just generate extend the values to i32/i64 silently. Micah