Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "destroy2".
Did you mean:
destroy
2013 Aug 22
2
[LLVMdev] PrescheduleNodesWithMultipleUses() causing failure in PickNodeToScheduleBottomUp() ???
Hi
I have brought everything together in this email.
The problem
========
Take the following DAG (arrow to predecessor):
SetUp2 SetUp1
^ ^
| |
| |
Destroy2---->PredSU <----SU
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
----------- | ---------
| | |
Destroy1
^
|
In this example there are two successors of 'PredSU' with type
getCallFram...
2013 Aug 22
0
[LLVMdev] PrescheduleNodesWithMultipleUses() causing failure in PickNodeToScheduleBottomUp() ???
sorry,
Just noticed that the diagrams have 'Destroy' & 'SetUp' the wrong way around!
Robert
________________________________
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] on behalf of Robert Lytton [robert at xmos.com]
Sent: 21 August 2013 18:34
To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] PrescheduleNodesWithMultipleUses() causing failure in
2013 Aug 21
2
[LLVMdev] PrescheduleNodesWithMultipleUses() causing failure in PickNodeToScheduleBottomUp() ???
Hi,
I have reasoned through and believe the problem is with the PrescheduleNodesWithMultipleUses.
Take the following DAG (arrow to predecessor):
Destroy Destroy
^ ^
| |
| |
SetUp----->PredSU <-----SU
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
----------- |
2009 Jan 05
0
integration test not calling destroy
...o figure out. While I don''t consider myself a rails newbie, this does
qualify as a rookie mistake.
I was having an integration test fail because its call to my one of my
app''s destroy controller methods did not appear to be firing. Along
the way, I tried renaming destroy to destroy2, and that "solved" the
problem. Except it failed to explain the actual problem.
It turned out that I was mistakenly using ''get'' instead of ''post'' in
the integration test to trigger the method.
For those of you that haven''t run into this y...
2016 Jun 11
4
[RFC] LLVM Coroutines
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Gor Nishanov <gornishanov at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Eli:
>
> >> Naively, you would expect that it would be legal to hoist the store...
> >> but that breaks your coroutine semantics because the global could be
> mutated
> >> between the first return and the resume.
>
> Hmmm... I don't see the problem. I think