Displaying 20 results from an estimated 3218 matches for "conservatives".
Did you mean:
conservative
2006 Sep 10
3
HFSC traffic loss bug, kernel 2.6.16.24
Hello,
I have finally managed to understand HFSC up to a level which allowed me to
create a QoS script which maintains low VoIP latency while running stuff
like eMule.
Unfortunately, HFSC seems to have a severe bug.
Why do I consider this as a bug defenitely?
Well, my script runs without any errors, then QoS works perfectly for some
hours, no error messages in kernel log.
Then randomly the
2004 Jul 23
4
Reading ASCII files
Dear all,
I need to read an ASCII file with diffent length lines.
This is what is contained in the file gene.txt:
1st line ID description snp_id genotype
2nd line 10003 Low rs152240
3rd line 10003 Moderate rs189011 TC
4th line 10004 Conservative rs152240 GC
5th line 10004 Bad rs154354
6th line 10013 Bad rs152240
7th line 10019 Conservative rs152240 AC
etc...
This is what I would like to obtain
2015 Nov 24
0
Conservancy (home of Samba) needs support for GPL enforcement.
Hi all,
You may not know, but The Software Freedom Conservancy
is the legal home of the Samba project.
However, most Linux-using corporations *really* hate
GPL enforcement. To the point where they'll pull funding
for diversity programs and try and get conference talks
cancelled.
I hope Samba users will help support Conservancy so it
can continue doing vital work for us and other projects.
2015 Jan 27
5
[LLVMdev] PBQP crash
> A node should never be put into the conservatively allocatable list if there is a chance of it spilling.
I can understand why the logic of NodeMetadata::isConservativelyAllocatable is necessary for the node to be allocatable, but I have not been able to convince myself this is sufficient, especially when the node degree > available registers.
Cheers,
Arnaud
From:
2015 Dec 10
1
Samba Team encourages supporting the Software Freedom Conservancy
For a number of years now, the Samba Team has been a member of the
Software Freedom Conservancy. They handle quite a bit of administration
for our project as well as pursuing GPL compliance. If you'd like to
see more about what they do, please check: https://sfconservancy.org/about/
We urge you to support the Conservancy. Here is a message from our own
Jeremy Allison:
2004 Feb 09
1
htb: class isn''t work conserving ?!
I am seeing a lot of messages like this on my console and in
/var/log/messages:
Feb 9 19:27:55 rnsa kernel: htb: class 20001 isn''t work conserving ?!
The class it''s referring to is the only subclass of an HTB qdisc. Can
anyone tell me why HTB would complain in this way? If I understand
correctly, HTB isn''t a work-conserving qdisc anyway.
2010 Sep 25
1
[LLVMdev] Stack roots and function parameters
Forgive my top post but I hate Windows. J
I am surprised you (Talin) say that "we know conservative collectors work"
because my experience has very much been of them not working. Indeed, if you
have 400Mb of allocated heap blocks on a 32-bit machine is there not a 10%
chance of *each* random 32-bit int "pointing" into your heap, i.e. a false
positive? I just did a simple
2012 Sep 19
3
[LLVMdev] Offer of membership to LLVM into the Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn at sfconservancy.org> writes:
> I'm sorry for the intrusion of a project policy discussion onto the
> developer list, but there may be many here who may have thoughts, input,
> or question regarding Conservancy's offer for LLVM's membership,
> discussed below. If you're not interested in that topic, please feel
> free to
2012 Sep 19
0
[LLVMdev] Offer of membership to LLVM into the Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.
On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:14 AM, dag at cray.com wrote:
> "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn at sfconservancy.org> writes:
>> I'm sorry for the intrusion of a project policy discussion onto the
>> developer list, but there may be many here who may have thoughts, input,
>> or question regarding Conservancy's offer for LLVM's membership,
>> discussed below.
2015 Jan 29
0
[LLVMdev] PBQP crash
Hi,
Sorry for the delay, it has taken some extra time as more than one bug showed up ☺
I continued to look into this with your viewpoint that a node that is conservatively allocatable should never be spilled. The first thing I did was therefore to add some extra code with an assert for this.
I believe I then found three bugs and fixed the two:
Bug 1: Incorrect transpositions in handleAddEdge()
2015 Jan 30
0
[LLVMdev] PBQP crash
Hi Arnaud,
The conservatively allocatable test is supposed to check two conditions,
either of which would be sufficient to make a node allocatable:
(1) There exists some register that is not aliased by any register option
for any neighbor. This is the "safe row" test. It is straightforward, but
likely to fire only rarely.
(2) The sum of the maximum number of registers aliased by any
2007 Apr 18
2
[LLVMdev] Regalloc Refactoring
Evan Cheng wrote:
> the given infrastructure? Perhaps. But not without pain. The current
> data structure is lacking detailed def-use info to properly determine
> the correct split point. The register allocator even treat
> "fixed" (i.e. physical register) intervals separately from other
> active ones.
>
> The point is, the current code needs a lot of
2006 Mar 23
1
conservative robust estimation in (nonlinear) mixed models
Conservative robust estimation methods do not appear to be
currently available in the standard mixed model methods for R,
where by conservative robust estimation I mean methods which
work almost as well as the methods based on assumptions of
normality when the assumption of normality *IS* satisfied.
We are considering adding such a conservative robust estimation option
for the random effects to
2015 Jan 30
0
[LLVMdev] PBQP crash
- Re-sending to include llvm-dev.
HI Jonas,
This is great - thank you very much for your analysis!
You're spot on about Bug 1 - the row/column checks are transposed there. I
have fixed this in r227628.
Regarding Bug 2, as discussed on the other thread I'm going to teach the
register allocator to prune single-option vregs so that they never make it
into the graph.
I haven't had a
2015 Jan 26
3
[LLVMdev] PBQP crash
Hi,
I have run into a test case on an out-of-tree target where PBQP fails to complete register allocation after "Attempting to spill already spilled value" (the triggered assert in InlineSpiller::spill().
First, the original LiveInterval is spilled. It is a load of a symbol into a narrow register class, i.e. a subset of the class of address registers. InlineSpiller decides to
2013 May 08
2
[LLVMdev] Predicated Vector Operations
On May 8, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can almost see that, but how is the intrinsic any different from a
> conservative width for stores/loads where they're not handled by an
> optimization pass? I'm assuming I'm missing something here.
>
> -eric
I don't understand what you mean by "conservative width".
2012 Dec 03
3
[LLVMdev] Minimum Python Version
03.12.2012, 11:44, "Marc J. Driftmeyer" <mjd at reanimality.com>:
> One of the most conservative distributions is Debian.
RHEL/CentOS is more conservative. RHEL 6 ships Python 2.6.6, RHEL 5 (which is still widely used) ships 2.4.3
--
Regards,
Konstantin
2010 Sep 22
0
[LLVMdev] Stack roots and function parameters
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> So I've managed to get my stack crawler working and passing its unit
> tests
> >> - this is the one
2004 Jul 02
5
htb: class 10007 isn''t work conserving ?!
I''m getting the following error/warning at some point in my config
script, and I''m not sure which class it is referring to.
htb: class 10007 isn''t work conserving ?!
I [think I] understand that htb is a non-work-conserving qdisc, and I
[think I] have configured things so that every htb qdisc I instantiate
limits the bandwidth, so I don''t understand why this
2008 Aug 22
0
[LLVMdev] Dependence Analysis [was: Flow-Sensitive AA]
In the general case, I think you have to be conservative about this
because programmers may deliberately want this kind of "wraparound"
behavior, e.g., with periodic boundary conditions. But 99.9% of
programs probably don't need that so it would be bad to penalize them
for this corner case. In such a situation, I think you just have to
support both choices, but choose the