search for: dinar

Indeed. But the problem here is that Dinar is trying to keep information after a load/store is removed by instcombine For example: v4sf v = {p[0], p[1], p[2], p[3]}; v4sf v2 = shuffle(v, 0, 0, 2, 2); Some pass comes in and removes the p[3] and p[1]. Now you have smaller code, but lost the ability to use a vector load for all those value...

On 09/26/2017 08:31 AM, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote: > Hi Hal, >> Are you primarily concerned with being able to widen loads later in the pipeline? Could we attached metadata to the remaining loads indicating that it would be legal to widen them? > no, I don't have any concerns about intrinsic way of implementation...

...So now, the intrinsic look like this: void phantom_mem(any_pointer base, any_pointer aggregate, uint64_t maximum_offset) For PR21780, I don't need to use aggregate so it is set to null, but for other similar issues this aggregate parameter might be useful. Thanks, Dinar. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:52 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 09/13/2017 04:46 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> Hi Michael, >>> >>> I have a case where InstCombine removes a store and your approach would >>> be &g...

...to an aggregate could be restored. Yes, no problem and we could add the aggregate pointer to this new intrinsic and in my particular case I should ignore it, but I am looking now at "speculation_marker" metadata and I am still not sure how to implement it better. Thanks, Dinar. On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Haidl, Michael <michael.haidl at uni-muenster.de> wrote: > Hi Dinar, > > I am asking because I am maintaining an out-of-tree pass which does > exactly what SLP does not. It is a pass designed for GPUs to combine > loads and stores, e.g., when...

On 09/13/2017 04:46 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Michael, >> I have a case where InstCombine removes a store and your approach would be >> valuable for me if the entire access to an aggregate could be restored. > Yes, no problem and we could add the aggregate pointer to this new > intrins...

...eption. Here is the question: Should we assume that FPENV was initialized with FE_ALL_EXCEPT by default or we could rely for example on "-fno-trapping-math" flag or we could completely ignore the FPU exception issue(see https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6050)? Thanks, Dinar.

...t is suitable for vectorization(see https://reviews.llvm.org/D35139 ). Also, please note that’s the information that is lost when InstCombine kills the last load in the series and there is no way to restore this information later in following passes. Thanks, Dinar.

...uble, double* %arrayidx7, align 8 %vecinit8 = insertelement <4 x double> %vecinit5, double %3, i32 3 %shuffle = shufflevector <4 x double> %vecinit8, <4 x double> %vecinit8, <4 x i32> <i32 3, i32 3, i32 2, i32 2> ret <4 x double> %shuffle } Thanks, Dinar. On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Haidl, Michael <michael.haidl at uni-muenster.de> wrote: > Interesting approach but how do you handle more complex offsets, e.g., when > the pointer is part of an aggregate? Only one offset does not seem enough to > handle generic cases. > > -...

...truction an incorrect IR. So, I just avoid to notice any pointer operation if it is belong to a loop, except those where the the whole chain of operations pointer origin, GEP, Load, Shuffle operation are in the same loop and in the same basic block. Thanks, Dinar. Here is the thread for this issue regarding using metadata: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-July/115730.html

Hello, LDAP Samba processes consume a lot of memory. Each LDAP process loads the entire ldb database into memory and does not release it over time. For example, for a 4GB ldb database and 4 LDAP processes, Samba will use up more than 16 GB of RAM. If only 16GB of RAM is installed on the server, then Samba will respond to requests with long delays. Some requests will not be answered (by time-out).

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:26:50 +0500 Dinar Yulm via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hello, > > LDAP Samba processes consume a lot of memory. Each LDAP process loads > the entire ldb database into memory and does not release it over > time. For example, for a 4GB ldb database and 4 LDAP processes, Samba >...

...ters, ADSI, EDIT and others (There are no problems connecting these utilities to Windows servers with a similar database). > What OS is this ? Debian 9 Stretch ??, 22 ???. 2024??. ? 12:50, Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org >: > On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:26:50 +0500 > Dinar Yulm via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > LDAP Samba processes consume a lot of memory. Each LDAP process loads > > the entire ldb database into memory and does not release it over > > time. For example, for a 4GB ldb database and 4...

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 13:49:24 +0500 Dinar Yulm via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > What do you mean by 'LDAP Samba processes' ? > > LDAP server pre-forked workers. > > > What are the actual commands that you are running ? > > Some graphical utilities of Windows Server, for example: A...

...one of the latest versions installed. Some servers use Ubuntu 22.04, there is a similar problem. The domain uses Samba builds of the same version on all controllers. ??, 22 ???. 2024 ?., 14:31 Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org>: > On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 13:49:24 +0500 > Dinar Yulm via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > What do you mean by 'LDAP Samba processes' ? > > > > LDAP server pre-forked workers. > > > > > What are the actual commands that you are running ? > > > > Some graphical utiliti...

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:59:38 +0500 Dinar Yulm via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > We build samba from source code. This server has a build of one of the > latest versions installed. > > Some servers use Ubuntu 22.04, there is a similar problem. > > The domain uses Samba builds of the same version on al...

On 22/08/24 19:26, Dinar Yulm via samba wrote: > Hello, > > LDAP Samba processes consume a lot of memory. Each LDAP process loads the > entire ldb database into memory and does not release it over time. For > example, for a 4GB ldb database and 4 LDAP processes, Samba will use up > more than 16 GB of RAM...

...On the mailing lists * Zachary Turner has sent a [heads-up](http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-September/117418.html) about a slight change to the lit workflow. If you already use `./bin/llvm-lit` in the build dir rather than `utils/lit/lit.py` from source, you should see no changes. * Dinar Temirbulatov has posted an RFC on adding a ['phantom' memory intrinsic](http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-September/117381.html). This would keep track of cases where load operations are removed by passes like InstCombine. * Kyle Butt has posted an RFC [implementing trace-based...

Any idea why this calculates the integer the way it does? irb> ("291.15".to_f * 100.0).to_i => 29114 Thanks, Tom -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to