search for: defaultopts

...the other half for the gnutls fix. > > Can you check if the IR file specifies a target triple which doesn't > match the current platform? > > -Eli Eli, The polly testsuite only has a single file for CodeGen/single_do_loop_scev_replace.ll which has... ; RUN: opt %loadPolly %defaultOpts -polly-cloog -analyze %s | FileCheck %s ; RUN: opt %loadPolly %defaultOpts %s | lli %EatErrOnX86 ; RUN: opt %loadPolly %defaultOpts -polly-codegen %s | lli %EatErrOnX86 ; ModuleID = 'single_do_loop_scev_replace.s' target datalayout = "e-p:64:64:64-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:...

...t; >> Can you check if the IR file specifies a target triple which doesn't >> match the current platform? >> >> -Eli > > Eli, > The polly testsuite only has a single file for CodeGen/single_do_loop_scev_replace.ll which has... > > ; RUN: opt %loadPolly %defaultOpts -polly-cloog -analyze %s | FileCheck %s > ; RUN: opt %loadPolly %defaultOpts %s | lli %EatErrOnX86 > ; RUN: opt %loadPolly %defaultOpts -polly-codegen %s | lli %EatErrOnX86 > ; ModuleID = 'single_do_loop_scev_replace.s' > target datalayout = "e-p:64:64:64-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:...

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 04:43:42PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 03:53:50PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jack Howarth

...t;> The patch is attached. > > The patch includes only one test case. I also have some tiny last comments > inline. Otherwise the patch looks good. > >> +++ test/ScopInfo/simple_nonaffine_loop_exfail.ll     (revision 0) >> @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ >> +; RUN: opt %loadPolly %defaultOpts -polly-scops -analyze %s | >> FileCheck %s >> +; XFAIL: * > > Why is this one still XFAIL? I wanted to add a test case that in case of a "missing the flag" at command line confirmed the functionality was actually disabled (and this is the reason of the XFAIL test). Orig...

.... >> >> The patch includes only one test case. I also have some tiny last comments >> inline. Otherwise the patch looks good. >> >>> +++ test/ScopInfo/simple_nonaffine_loop_exfail.ll (revision 0) >>> @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ >>> +; RUN: opt %loadPolly %defaultOpts -polly-scops -analyze %s | >>> FileCheck %s >>> +; XFAIL: * >> >> Why is this one still XFAIL? > > I wanted to add a test case that in case of a "missing the flag" at > command line confirmed the functionality was actually disabled (and > this is...

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 04:43:42PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 03:53:50PM -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > >> > While testing llvm/polly svn on

...hat the code is generated. > > The patch is attached. The patch includes only one test case. I also have some tiny last comments inline. Otherwise the patch looks good. > +++ test/ScopInfo/simple_nonaffine_loop_exfail.ll (revision 0) > @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ > +; RUN: opt %loadPolly %defaultOpts -polly-scops -analyze %s | > FileCheck %s > +; XFAIL: * Why is this one still XFAIL? > Index: lib/Analysis/ScopInfo.cpp > =================================================================== > --- lib/Analysis/ScopInfo.cpp (revision 144978) > +++ lib/Analysis/ScopInfo.cpp (work...

...ludes only one test case. I also have some tiny last >>> comments >>> inline. Otherwise the patch looks good. >>> >>>> +++ test/ScopInfo/simple_nonaffine_loop_exfail.ll     (revision 0) >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ >>>> +; RUN: opt %loadPolly %defaultOpts -polly-scops -analyze %s | >>>> FileCheck %s >>>> +; XFAIL: * >>> >>> Why is this one still XFAIL? >> >> I wanted to add a test case that in case of a "missing the flag" at >> command line confirmed the functionality was actually...

var v1 = { a: ''value for a'', b:''value for b'' } var v2 = { c: ''value for c'', d: function(){some code...} }; var v3 = v2.merge(v1); I''m getting an error doing this... what is wrong?

2011/11/15 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > 2011/11/14 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>: >> On 11/14/2011 02:45 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: >>> >>> 2011/11/14 Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es>: >>>> >>>> On 11/14/2011 01:24 AM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Tobias.

...t;> The patch is attached. > > The patch includes only one test case. I also have some tiny last comments > inline. Otherwise the patch looks good. > >> +++ test/ScopInfo/simple_nonaffine_loop_exfail.ll ? ? (revision 0) >> @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ >> +; RUN: opt %loadPolly %defaultOpts -polly-scops -analyze %s | >> FileCheck %s >> +; XFAIL: * > > Why is this one still XFAIL? I wanted to add a test case that in case of a "missing the flag" at command line confirmed the functionality was actually disabled (and this is the reason of the XFAIL test). Orig...

Is there a way to cancel a specific effect? For instance; Effects are added to the queue. Before actually processing the effect, I''d like to check a condition & cancel the effect if necessary. Here''s the code excerpt: var menu = { toggleText: function(element,toggle) { var vis = $(element+''Text'').visible(); if (toggle && !vis)

Note that this does not fix gettext for app, that will be done separately in another patch as F10/F11 require different setups for that. In the meantime gettext works if manually changed in environment.rb to gettext_rails instead of gettext/rails Signed-off-by: Jason Guiditta <jason.guiditt at gmail.com> --- src/app/controllers/application.rb | 200 --------

Note that one of the 8 patches (#6) will be sent separately in reply to this email, as some of the replaced lines are too long, so git won't let me send the email. However, there is nothing wrong with that patch, and it should be applied in the sequence listed below. Note also that I assume this will be tested on a clean f11 install, rather than an upgrade of an existing ovirt server