search for: dutoits

Hi Stefanus, Thanks for verifying this. Could you patch this or should I open a new bug report and find a generic solution first? Cheers, Nicolas From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Stefanus Du Toit Sent: woensdag 1 april 2009 18:59 To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Shuffle combine On 1-Apr-09, at 12:42

Hi Nicolas, On 2-Apr-09, at 6:04 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Thanks for verifying this. Could you patch this or should I open a > new bug report and find a generic solution first? I don't have write access so the best I could do would be to submit a patch, and I'm crazy busy at the moment. I actually think the check I described below is fine and would fix this bug (but

Hi All, Well, we compiled pre9 on an intel Mac running Tiger and now it does work on the machine. I need to see if that will now work on a PPC mac though. Hopefully it will but I am wondering if there is a way to compile and make a universal binary rsync for the Mac that will run on both, from my PPC Mac. Itried that yesterday with patch -p1 <patches/flags.diff patch -p1

Hello, We've run across the following missed optimization: in the attached loop (addind.c/addind-opt.ll) there's a lookup into an array (V) using an indirect index (coming from another array, WI[k]) offset by a loop- invariant base (l). The full addressing expression can be reassociated so that we add the offset l to V's base first, and then add the indirect part. This makes

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: > The computation of %base then becomes loop-invariant and can be lifted out. > > What's the best way to add this optimization to LLVM? Probably the best place is LICM itself... only loop transformations are aware whether something is loop-invariant. Although, I'm not completely

The llvm-dev archives (and other llvm/clang mailing list archives) on the web don't seem to have any new messages since some time Monday night. Stefanus -- Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> RapidMind Inc. phone: +1 519 885 5455 x116 -- fax: +1 519 885 1463

Hi All, I think I am missing something with the backup-dir-dels.diff patch. How does that differ from the original --backup -backup-dir=DIR option? Using the original one works fine (on patched or non-patched rsync), putting deleted source files into the DIR on destination, but when I run --backup -backup-dir-dels=DIR, nothing happens to the deleted files. Rob D

Hi Stefanus, Thanks for the info. I still think it's a bug though. Take for example a case where the vectors each have four elements. The values in Mask[] can range from 0 to 7, while HLSMask only has 4 elements. So LHSMask[Mask[i]] can go out of bounds, no? Cheers, Nicolas From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Stefanus Du

On 1-Apr-09, at 12:42 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi Stefanus, > > Thanks for the info. I still think it’s a bug though. Take for > example a case where the vectors each have four elements. The values > in Mask[] can range from 0 to 7, while HLSMask only has 4 elements. > So LHSMask[Mask[i]] can go out of bounds, no? Good point! One easy way to fix this would be to use:

Hi All, I have been getting reports from users of backuplist+, my wrapper application for rsync (currently with build of 3.0.6), about odd behavior after updating to OS 10.6 Snow Leopard. Basically: the problem occurs backing up a directory to a local mounted network volume. Previously all worked fine but after updating to 10.6 there are reports that no files get copied and the destination fills

For those curious about uses of LLVM, we just officially announced our adoption of LLVM in our products: http://www.rapidmind.com/News-Nov10-08-LLVM-OpenCL.php Thanks for all the support so far on here, we look forward to continuing to work with LLVM! -- Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> RapidMind Inc. phone: +1 519 885 5455 x116 -- fax: +1 519 885 1463

Thanks Wayne and everybody, This is a huge boost to have a modern rsync for OSX. We're all grateful. Rob D PS I did notice that we lost the bsd flags test in 3.0. It was ok in pre10.... thanks again bbouncer Verifying: basic-permissions ... ok Verifying: timestamps ... Sub-test: modification time ... ok ok Verifying: symlinks ... ok Verifying:

On 31-Jul-08, at 2:38 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Jul 31, 2008, at 7:22 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: >> In the same breath I’d also like to kindly ask if someone could have >> a look at the reverse operations, namely trunk from 128 to 64 bit >> using movdq2q, and 128 to 32 and 64 to 32 using movd. This also >> seems related to Bug 2585. Thanks again. > > The operations

On 21-Jul-08, at 7:33 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Stefanus Du Toit > <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: >> 1) Vector shl, lshr, ashr >> > I have a rough draft of a patch for this that works reasonably well > for simple cases... I don't think I really have the time to finish it > properly, but I'll clean it up a bit and

On 30-Jan-09, at 6:14 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Stefanus Du Toit > <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: >> The computation of %base then becomes loop-invariant and can be >> lifted out. >> >> What's the best way to add this optimization to LLVM? > > Probably the best place is LICM itself... only loop

...ne on 10.6 using this rsync cause some executable files ( the ones that are mostly compressed this way on osx ) to be damaged. I did a test twice and indeed a handful of them are damaged. They all appear to be in /Volume/Snowy/usr/bin and/or /Volume/Snowy/usr/share. I ran xattr on it and robert-dutoits-macbook-pro:~ astrid$ xattr -l /Volume/Snowy/usr/bin/file com.apple.ResourceFork: com.apple.decmpfs: These attributes are supposed to be hidden when on 10.6. The files have 0 bytes to appear to be compressed but can not be un-compresed. I tried file on the clone and it doesn't work. Someone...

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: > /* snip PointerIntPair bug */ I had made a toy language a month ago to catch back up to the latest svn LLVM api and for some reason anytime I used a compare operator (<, =, or > are all this toy language has) that was inside a function definition (a prime example is this code "(begin

On Nov 10, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > For those curious about uses of LLVM, we just officially announced our > adoption of LLVM in our products: > > http://www.rapidmind.com/News-Nov10-08-LLVM-OpenCL.php I'm thrilled to read an official announcement of that! Do you use LLVM only for static code generation or are you also doing any late (e.g.,

Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > The llvm-dev archives (and other llvm/clang mailing list archives) on > the web don't seem to have any new messages since some time Monday > night. > It seems to be working for me. Does it work for you now? -- John T. > Stefanus > > -- > Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> > RapidMind Inc. > phone: +1

On 4-May-09, at 4:15 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote: > Actually, I am *very* curious if this is the bug. I can try to see if > it is now that I know what to look for (or if you fix it in SVN then I > will first make sure the bug still exists in mine, when it does then I > will update LLVM to the latest trunk and test again, if it was fixed > that I will be giving many thanks), but the