search for: contentie

Hi all, Following up on the extensive discussions since January, many of us would like to put in place a process to improve LLVM’s decision making process for contentious issues. I’ve put together a proposal for how this works, and am recursively using it to get feedback on the process itself. Thank you to the many people who contributed great ideas and improvements during the pitch phases and

Thanks Martin! We are using the ctdb 4.6.10. Are you able to recreate this every time? Sometimes? Rarely? Rarely. Note that you're referring to nodes 1, 2, 3 while CTDB numbers the nodes 0, 1, 2. In fact, the situation is a little more confused than this: This is my wrong. The CTDB numbers the nodes is 0,1,2. # ctdb status Number of nodes:3 pnn:0 10.231.8.70 OK pnn:1 10.231.8.68 OK

Thanks Martin! We are using the ctdb 4.6.10. Are you able to recreate this every time? Sometimes? Rarely? Rarely. Note that you're referring to nodes 1, 2, 3 while CTDB numbers the nodes 0, 1, 2. In fact, the situation is a little more confused than this: This is my wrong. The CTDB numbers the nodes is 0,1,2. # ctdb status Number of nodes:3 pnn:0 10.231.8.67 OK pnn:1 10.231.8.65 OK

On Jun 2, 2020, at 9:54 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > This was a mistake, fixed. > > I missed that this was changed, I was excited about a Discourse category for this! In particular the second point of the doc points at llvm-dev@ being a problem as the current forum for such discussions. > If Discourse is a no-go (?), then having a separate mailing-list would

On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:57 PM, Kit Barton <kit.barton at gmail.com> wrote: > A few comments on the document: > 1. It seems the current document has settled on using threads on > llvm-dev, however there are still two reference to the LLVM Proposal > Reviews category on Discourse: last paragraph of Proposed Solution > section, first paragraph of the Review Discussion Template

On Mar 19, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> As RFCs go this is short and sweet - I think it would be nice to add an >> empty method to iterator_range. Something like: >> >> bool empty() const { return begin() != end();

> And now we're against the Atom model? I'm quite new to the llvm community, and basically unfamiliar with LLD, so maybe I'm simply uninformed. If so, I will now proceed to demonstrate that to an entire list of people. :) I've read the doc on http://lld.llvm.org/design.html, but the list of features it says that you get with LLD/Atoms and don't get with the "old

On Wednesday 30 April 2008 17:26, David Vandevoorde wrote: > >> ...malloc() is not specified to access a volatile > >> object, modify an object, or modifying a file (directly or > >> indirectly); i.e., it has no side effect from the language point of > >> view. > > > > Daveed: > > > > Good to know that I was looking at the correct

> You''re running on a shared server and when you startup the second > mongrel more than likely the VPS system is sending the second Mongrel > a kill signal because you''ve gone over your resource allocation. > > ~Wayne Thanks - are there other resources that would be contentious other than memory? I believe I had about 60Meg still available (even w/ 2 mongrels

Currently, if you were to print out the R frequently asked questions (http://cran.r-project.org/doc/FAQ/R-FAQ.html), it would be 132 pages long. Is it any wonder that so many question could be answered by looking at the FAQ but are not? Here are a few (contentious) suggestions to improve the document. * Remove the complete list of R packages * Include a complete list of frequently asked

Hello everyone, In an effort to get a better handle on nouveau's outstanding issues, I'm going to close all bugs that haven't seen any updates since 2011. I asked a core group of nouveau developers about this, and none of them seemed to object. Depending on how this goes, we may do the same thing up to the end of 2012, but that was more contentious. A lot of these bugs are pre-KMS,

The MIR format currently has a short-hand syntax for declaring vreg classes and banks in the function body so you can write something like this: name: foo body: | %3:gpr(s64) = ... rather than the much more verbose and awkward: name: foo registers: - { id: 3, class: gpr } body: | %3(s64) = ... I'd like to make this shorthand the only way to do this. There are a few

<div> </div><div><div><p>Carry-less multiplication[1] instructions exist (at least optionally) on many architectures: armv8, RISC-V, x86_64, POWER, SPARC, C64x, and possibly more.</p><p>This proposal is to add a <code>llvm.clmul</code> instruction. Or if that is contentious, <code>llvm.experimental.bitmanip.clmul</code> instruction.

On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 18:17 -0500, David A. Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 30 April 2008 17:26, David Vandevoorde wrote: > > > >> ...malloc() is not specified to access a volatile > > >> object, modify an object, or modifying a file (directly or > > >> indirectly); i.e., it has no side effect from the language point of > > >> view. > >

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Pete Cooper via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Renato >> On Jul 19, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> A few basic rules to get accepted are if: >> * the target exists and can be easily purchased / emulated

Hi Chris, Bear in mind that the more questions we have, the harder it will be to interpret the results. If we have 20+ questions, it'll be impossible to understand anything. Also, the multiple choice questions are meant as a guide to understand "how many" people fall into one or another category, while the free text ones are meant to complement and give technical reasons for their

Hello, I need to design a fairly simple front-end for someone to use an R script system that I've built. My thought was to just use the text based menus available in the base R package, perhaps in some kind of loop. How have other people done this? Any "best practices" that you can recommend? Thanks! -- Noah Silverman UCLA Department of Statistics 8117 Math Sciences Building

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 01:09:14PM +0200, David Ayers wrote: >Am Donnerstag, den 31.08.2017, 11:32 +0200 schrieb David Ayers: >> >> Am Donnerstag, den 31.08.2017, 10:11 +0200 schrieb Martin Kletzander: >> > >> > AFAIK the support for this was not added. Feel free to request this in >> > our bugzilla [1] so that we can track it. Or, even better, send a

Hi, I would like to remind people about the Virtualization track at Linux Plumbers Conference 2010, held in Cambridge, MA, November 3-5, 2010. Please note the deadline for submissions is July 19, 2010. LPC is particular well suited for technical presentations, work in progress and subjects that needs discussion and collaboration between communities (kernel, desktop/gfx, virtualization, etc.),

Hi, I would like to remind people about the Virtualization track at Linux Plumbers Conference 2010, held in Cambridge, MA, November 3-5, 2010. Please note the deadline for submissions is July 19, 2010. LPC is particular well suited for technical presentations, work in progress and subjects that needs discussion and collaboration between communities (kernel, desktop/gfx, virtualization, etc.),