search for: destroy2

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