search for: conserve

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

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

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.

> 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:

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:

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.

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

"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

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.

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()

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

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

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

- 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

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

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".

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

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

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

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