search for: counterpropose

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat.com> wrote: [...] > Hmm. If that only affects Cygwin, and if defines.h is not synced anyway, > what about getting rid of the configure stuff entirely? > > Tested counterproposal: Looks reasonable. It's late here so I'm going to look at it tomorrow. > As for the comment preceeding the definition,

On Oct 4, 2008, at 2:51 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> I like your approach of using the use lists but I'm not sure the >>> ordering >>> is guaranteed. If it is, your approach is superior. >> >> I got my patch updated to work with TOT. Here it is. Comments >> welcome. > > Hi Dave, > > Great. I'd like to get this in, but would

On Saturday 04 October 2008 17:05, Chris Lattner wrote: > Looking more closely at the approach, I infer that the (logical in > hindsight) issue are cases where mem2reg scans a BB to see the > relative ordering of two instructions. For example, the single store Correct. > case. I could imagine that if you saw lots of single store allocas in > the middle of a large BB that

Timo, I'm working with a webmail client that periodically polls unread message counts for a list of folders. It currently does this by doing a LIST or LSUB and then iterating across all of the folders, running a SEARCH ALL UNSEEN, and counting the resulting UID list. Eventually I'd like to see it using RFC5819 LIST-EXTENDED, but that requires a fair bit of work. In the mean time I'm

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:05:53PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: [...] > This version doesn't build on Cygwin anymore. The reason is that > various configure tests fail. > > The culprit is the new definition of IPPORT_RESERVED to 0 in configure.ac. Sigh. How about putting it in defines.h instead? includes.h includes netinet/in.h from whence the definition of IPPORT_RESERVED

On May 1, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Proposal > Re-architect the linker based on the section model where it’s appropriate. > Stop simulating different linker semantics using the Unix model. Instead, directly implement the native behavior. Preface: I have never personally contributed code to LLD, so don’t take anything I’m about to say too seriously.

On Monday 06 October 2008 11:47, David Greene wrote: > > As far as the approach goes, here's a counterproposal that is a bit > > less complex. I suggest adding a single DenseMap<Instruction*, > > unsigned> to Mem2reg. If there is an entry in this map for a load/ > > store instruction, it would store the instruction's index in its basic > > block.

As suggested by Nir, here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2019-November/thread.html#00220

As mentioned in my reviews, I wonder if we should make our python callbacks look a bit more Pythonic by having kwargs added for each new flag that we want to expose. The idea was first floated here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2018-April/msg00108.html Note that with my proposal, there is no need for a python script to expose a global API_VERSION variable; new flags are added

I'm sorry if my suggestion gave an impression that I disregard the Mach-O port of the LLD linker. I do care about Mach-O. I do not plan to break or remove any functionality from the current Mach-O port of the LLD. I don't propose to remove the atom model from the linker as long as it seems to be a good fit for the port (and looks like it is). As to the proposal to have two different

On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:47 AM, David Greene wrote: >> As far as the approach goes, here's a counterproposal that is a bit >> less complex. I suggest adding a single DenseMap<Instruction*, >> unsigned> to Mem2reg. If there is an entry in this map for a load/ >> store instruction, it would store the instruction's index in its >> basic >> block.

nbdkit 1.17.3 pushes this series which allows you to opt in to API version 2 and has several improvements designed to reduce mandatory copies between Python code and the server: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2019-November/msg00209.html (actual version: https://github.com/libguestfs/nbdkit/commit/a9b2637cf4f00fb8a25ffaf31ee83be5fe019ae2) This does _not_ include Eric's

Hi all Currently Theora video in Matroska is not supported by Mplayer. To enable the support Michael Niedermayer has made the following proposal sometime back: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.mplayer.nut.devel/214 Appreciate if Theora developers could comment on that. Best Regards Unga ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your

On 3/22/19 11:42 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > > Hence, it is desirable to have a way for clients to specify that a > particular write zero request is being attempted for a fast wipe, and > get an immediate failure if the zero request would otherwise take the > same time as a write. Conversely, if the client is not performing a > pre-initialization pass, it is still more efficient

On Sep 26, 2008, at 8:41 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Thursday 25 September 2008 13:15, David Greene wrote: > >> My patch builds a map from BasicBlock to lists of loads and stores >> in that >> block in an initialization phase along with ordering information >> about the >> loads and stores. RewriteSingleStoreAlloca then queries that >> information

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Rui, > > Thank you for clarifying. This is very helpful. > > It’s unfortunate that you’re not seeing benefits from the increased > semantic knowledge the atom based model can provide. I know you’ve explored > the issue thoroughly, though, so I understand why you’re wanting to move a >

Hi Chris, Sounds like an excellent generic approach. I'd love to lend a hand to implement it but I'm afraid it involves a little more in-depth LLVM knowledge than what I currently master, so I'll leave it to Dave and you for now... Talking about performance, for me this optimization was the difference between mem2reg taking 63% of execution time, and having it totally

On Oct 20, 2008, at 10:04 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Monday 06 October 2008 11:47, David Greene wrote: > >>> As far as the approach goes, here's a counterproposal that is a bit >>> less complex. I suggest adding a single DenseMap<Instruction*, >>> unsigned> to Mem2reg. If there is an entry in this map for a load/ >>> store instruction, it

I'm sorry for not updating the thread -- I thought I did that before. I started experimenting the idea by implementing a minimal linker using the section-based design with some additional simplification/optimizations. It's already able to link small programs like the LLD itself, and the performance looks indeed better (probably the LLD is too small as a benchmark, but the new one is more

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:17:59PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > On 3/22/19 11:42 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > > > > > Hence, it is desirable to have a way for clients to specify that a > > particular write zero request is being attempted for a fast wipe, and > > get an immediate failure if the zero request would otherwise take the > > same time as a write.