search for: experimental

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 4904 matches for "experimental".

2017 Apr 10
10
RFC: Plan for removing components from namespace std::experimental
As part of the work on C++17, WG21 released a series of "Technical Specifications", (TS) which added proposed new features to the standard library. These were all defined in the namespace 'std::experimental' (and namespaces inside of that). Then, much of these features were merged into the main standard, and became part of namespace 'std'. Libc++ now has two implementations of several of these, and they are diverging (because changes were made to the ones in the main standard, but not to...
2008 Aug 26
0
Processed (with 58 errors): The possibility of attack with the help of symlinks in some Debian
Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > tags 496359 secuirity Unknown tag/s: secuirity. Recognized are: patch wontfix moreinfo unreproducible fixed potato woody sid help security upstream pending sarge sarge-ignore experimental d-i confirmed ipv6 lfs fixed-in-experimental fixed-upstream l10n etch etch-ignore lenny lenny-ignore. Bug#496359: The possibility of attack with the help of symlinks in some Debian packages There were no tags set. Tags added: > tags 496360 secuirity Unknown tag/s: secuirity. Recognized ar...
2017 Apr 10
2
[cfe-dev] RFC: Plan for removing components from namespace std::experimental
I second Justin's suggestion, but would that happen in LLVM 5 or 6? Just as something to consider, it may also cause spurious errors for people who are relying on the at-version-stability of experimental libraries, causing them to turn off warnings for deprecated code. As C Bergstrom has said, users buy into experimental libraries with the knowledge that the interface or behaviour could change at a moment's notice, so it might not be an issue, but it is worth considering. On Tue., 11 Apr. 201...
2010 May 06
0
xen_4.0.0-1~experimental.1_amd64.changes is NEW
libxen-dev_4.0.0-1~experimental.1_amd64.deb to main/x/xen/libxen-dev_4.0.0-1~experimental.1_amd64.deb libxenstore3.0_4.0.0-1~experimental.1_amd64.deb to main/x/xen/libxenstore3.0_4.0.0-1~experimental.1_amd64.deb (new) xen-docs-4.0_4.0.0-1~experimental.1_all.deb optional doc Documentation for Xen This...
2010 Apr 28
2
Xen 4.0 test packages
Hi I finally did the merge for Xen 4.0. For this I decided to rename the source package back to xen. The packages are available via http://hermes.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~blank/debian/xen-test. ec1482e14f2515bd6878da0d2229b725993601fa libxen-dev_4.0.0-1~experimental.1_amd64.deb 7c394f7158ca387225935f3bbe26bdc5518a1934 libxenstore3.0_4.0.0-1~experimental.1_amd64.deb b747970d0959ab3169267cfe354ae3427d58afb4 xen_4.0.0-1~experimental.1.debian.tar.gz 73fa58ac9a087e412583901e577b494813fa0446 xen_4.0.0-1~experimental.1.dsc aadfa4bda44c00be6ac8e5c10a2bd1003c04f042...
2014 Jun 06
7
[LLVMdev] Stack maps no longer experimental in 3.5
Hi all, It is my understanding that now WebKit depends on the stack map functionality in production. Also, on the mailing lists we've seen lots of users using in this feature. Can we eliminate the experimental status for 3.5? Off the top of my head, the changes needed are: - A read-through of StackMaps.rst to remove any mention of it being experimental. - Removing mention of it being experimental from http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#stack-map-intrinsics - Removing the `.experimental`...
2020 Feb 12
2
Whose responsibility is it to maintain tests using experimental backends?
...e test for the AVR backend (see http://45.33.8.238/mac/7865/step_11.txt). On the review https://reviews.llvm.org/D72992, a request was made to fix the test or revert the change. This test didn't fail locally or on any of the build bots, because the AVR backend is experimental and does not run even for build that has all normal targets enabled). The fix in this case is simple, and I don't have any real issue in making it, but there's a wider principle here: if an in-tree test fails but only when experimental items are enabled, whose responsibility is it to fix t...
2019 Apr 04
5
[RFC] Changes to llvm.experimental.vector.reduce intrinsics
Hi all, While working on a patch to improve codegen for fadd reductions on AArch64, I stumbled upon an outstanding issue with the experimental.vector.reduce.fadd/fmul intrinsics where the accumulator argument is ignored when fast-math is set on the intrinsic call. This behaviour is described in the LangRef (https://www.llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#id1905) and is mentioned in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi...
2018 Jan 04
0
RFC: Plan for removing components from namespace std::experimental
...10, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > As part of the work on C++17, WG21 released a series of "Technical > Specifications", (TS) which added proposed new features to the standard > library. These were all defined in the namespace 'std::experimental' (and > namespaces inside of that). > > Then, much of these features were merged into the main standard, and > became part of namespace 'std'. Libc++ now has two implementations of > several of these, and they are diverging (because changes were made to the > ones in...
2020 Jan 21
6
[RFC] Upstream development of support for yet-to-be-ratified RISC-V extensions
...; there doesn't seem to be a strong motivation for requiring a custom LLVM build > > to force this. However, such unratified extensions shouldn't be accessible via > > normal RISC-V ISA naming strings (e.g. "rv32imafdc"), and instead flags of the > > form `-riscv-experimental-vector-ext` in LLVM and `-mexperimental-vector-ext` > > in Clang should be used (i.e. option 3)). We discussed this in our weekly call > > however, and there were voices advocating either option 2 or 3. Input welcome. > > > > If going down the option 3 route, the flags could...
2010 Feb 16
2
[LLVMdev] Minor cosmetic issues
...er to use: (default: local) It would probably be better to use the first style consistently throughout. In -version output, Low Level Virtual Machine (http://llvm.org/): llvm version 2.6svn Optimized build. Built Feb 14 2010(11:05:20). Registered Targets: alpha - Alpha [experimental] arm - ARM bfin - Analog Devices Blackfin [experimental] c - C backend cellspu - STI CBEA Cell SPU [experimental] cooper - PIC16 Cooper [experimental] cpp - C++ backend mips - Mips mipsel - Mipsel msil - MSIL backend msp430 - MSP430...
2016 Jul 19
2
[RFC] Make Lanai backend non-experimental
On 7/19/2016 6:12 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > > I don't see why not. LGTM. Same here. -Krzysztof -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
2020 Feb 12
2
Whose responsibility is it to maintain tests using experimental backends?
https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#new-targets says that experimental backends should be supported by an active community, in part by providing build bots and fixing bugs related to the backend. So while it doesn't *explicitly* say things about patches that only break those backends, I think reading the spirit of that policy says that it's the responsibility...
2019 Feb 09
2
how experimental are the llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.* functions?
I'm interested in using @llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.smax/umax to implement runtime overflow checking for vectors. Here's an example checked addition, without vectors, and then I'll follow the example with what I would do for checked addition with vectors. Frontend code (zig): export fn entry() void { var a: i32 = 1;...
2013 Oct 18
4
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Stackmap and Patchpoint Intrinsic Proposal
On Oct 18, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: >> >> I recommend, this being the case, to replace 'webkit' with 'experimental'. Having webkit in the name implies some dependence on webkit, and there is none. Plus, this functionality will be used by outside projects as soon as it lands in trunk, and I suspect that having webkit in the initial name will end up as a naming incongruity that no one will really think is wor...
2017 Jan 11
10
[RFC] IR-level Region Annotations
A Proposal for adding an experimental IR-level region-annotation infrastructure ============================================================================= Hal Finkel (ANL) and Xinmin Tian (Intel) This is a proposal for adding an experimental infrastructure to support annotating regions in LLVM IR, making use of intrinsics and me...
2020 Feb 14
4
Moving the AVR backend out of experimental
Hi, There was a thread a few days ago about the expectations for experimental targets. At the moment, the only experimental target is AVR. It's been in the tree for a long time now, and generally seems well-behaved. Should we just make it a normal target? Nico -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm....
2017 Feb 03
4
Build status expectations for experimental targets
...x the build, and just leave it because it passes on the core buildbots. The build stays red for a few days until I go and check it. In the meantime, it likely causes spam for most if not all developers when they commit new code. All commits should keep master green, but what is the expectation for experimental backends? Is it reasonable to expect all developers who commit code to ensure tests pass on the AVR backend? On top of this, is there any way to notify maintainers of a backend when a buildbot has been failing for some time? I imagine other experimental backends have run into the same problems. --...
2019 Apr 05
4
[RFC] Changes to llvm.experimental.vector.reduce intrinsics
On 05/04/2019 09:37, Simon Pilgrim via llvm-dev wrote: > On 04/04/2019 14:11, Sander De Smalen wrote: >> Proposed change: >> >> ---------------------------- >> >> In this RFC I propose changing the intrinsics for >> llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.fadd and >> llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.fmul (see options A and B). I also >> propose renaming the 'accumulator' operand to 'start value' because >> for fmul this is the start value of the reduction, rather than a >> value to which the f...
2016 Jul 26
5
Target Acceptance Policy
...M, Renato Golin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > 6. The target's code must have been adapted to the developers policy as > well as > > the coding standards. This can take a while and it should be fine to > > accept external code into LLVM as experimental, but not officially. > > FWIW I’m not fond of not having this as the experimental part in the first > place. > It is harder to have things moving after being upstreamed. > I’d expect the upstreaming of a backend (into experimental state) to be > piece by piece with proper code rev...