search for: contentious

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 early drafts of the doc. Because this is a weird case, I’m not setting...

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

...I'm roughly in favor of the API. However, if there's been > standardization efforts for range, we should be sure that we're doing > something compatible there. There are a couple of proposals [1][2] that I can find. It sounds like the exact set of methods to provide is somewhat contentious [3]. empty() seems pretty innocuous though. Note that the standard proposals use std::range instead of std::iterator_range. In my opinion, other methods (e.g., front(), back(), and (for random access iterators) operator[]) would also be useful. [1]: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/p...

...ditional flexibility of representation. I gather the current model in LLD doesn't support an atomic unit with multiple symbols cleanly. And that that's the main issue that would be good to fix here. But, rather than talking about "eliminating the atom model" -- which seems to be contentious -- maybe it would be more peaceful to just say that the desired change is to "allow atoms to have multiple global symbols associated, and have more metadata"? It appears to me that it amounts to essentially the same thing, but may not be as contentious if described that way. If that chan...

...Good to know that I was looking at the correct section. I do not agree > > that your interpretation follows the as-if rule, because I do not > > agree > > with your interpretation of the C library specification of malloc(). > > Before I go on, let me state that this is not a contentious issue > among WG14: There is no doubt that the intent of the standard is that > this be a valid optimization. Maybe I missed something, but aren't we all talking about the wrong thing here? It seems to me that this isn't about side effects, it's about the return value of mallo...

...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 already running), and each mongrel only takes about 30 MB w/ my app. I ended up reducing the number of apache mpm''s, and then on a lark started w/ 3 mongrel servers to see if 1 or 2 would die. They'...

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 questions at the top of the document * Move the introduction to the end - none of this information is immediately useful for the person who is using the document * Mo...

...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 driver's been moved/changed/rewritten several times since they were filed, so it's quite likely that the issues have been fixed, or at the very least, require a re-test. As bug reporters tend to disappear after this much time (different email, hardware...

...regclass and update test checks 2. Modify existing tests to never provide the registers block 3. Move preferred-registers to their own block and remove the registers block A patch for step 1 is attached (with the other 241 test updates omitted for brevity). I don't expect this direction to be contentious, but since the change will touch so many files I'll wait until Monday or Tuesday to start committing in case anyone has any concerns. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mir-print-vregs.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not availabl...

...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. It takes two integer operands of the same width, and returns an integer with twice the width of the operands. (Is there a good reason to make these the same width, as all the other operations do even when it doesn’t really make...

...ooking at the correct section. I do not agree > > > that your interpretation follows the as-if rule, because I do not > > > agree > > > with your interpretation of the C library specification of malloc(). > > > > Before I go on, let me state that this is not a contentious issue > > among WG14: There is no doubt that the intent of the standard is that > > this be a valid optimization. > > Maybe I missed something, but aren't we all talking about the wrong thing > here? It seems to me that this isn't about side effects, it's about t...

...gt;> company that maintains the targets, >> * there is a reasonable community maintaining the rest of the system >> (firmware, OS, other tools, etc), >> * enough people commit themselves to maintain the LLVM back-end to >> avoid bit-rot, >> * the back-end is free of contentious features that would mean >> breaking every other target. > This is an excellent list. We should probably have something like it in the docs if we don’t already. Agree with Pete. I’d add (because the community will have to maintain it somehow): - good code quality and documentation - goo...

...project(s) do you regularly use? I've added these two as one. I know they're slightly different, but so will be the the answer to the first question, which will work to disambiguate this one. > (3) How often do you bisect LLVM with one or more subproject? I understand that this is a contentious issue around the git move, but we should focus on the bigger picture, which is day to day usage as well as infrastructure. > (4) Do you use any of the llvm.org projects without LLVM or with out-of-sync > LLVM (i.e. trunk libunwind with an old LLVM)? This looks very specific to me, I'm...

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

...this was already reported (on the last day of 2010): >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=666556 >and seems to restated (two years later) in: >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824573 > >and by the looks of this, generic dhcp options at global scope are >already contentious, let alone at host scope. > >So I guess we my stop configuring dnsmasq via libvirt. > Oh, look at that. It's good that you've found it. Of course there are people more proficient in the networking area who have way more thing on their radar. Looks like this is very often reques...

...ge, 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.), so if you have a contentious issue you would like to bring to a wider audience, this is the ideal place to do it! Note that this track is focusing on general Linux Virtualization, it is not hypervisor specific. Submissions related to Xen, KVM, VMware, containers, etc. are encouraged. Subjects could include: - Linux Kernel V...

...ge, 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.), so if you have a contentious issue you would like to bring to a wider audience, this is the ideal place to do it! Note that this track is focusing on general Linux Virtualization, it is not hypervisor specific. Submissions related to Xen, KVM, VMware, containers, etc. are encouraged. Subjects could include: - Linux Kernel V...