search for: guaranteed

Dear all, I''ve got a working HTB configuration with iptables, fwmark, SFQ etc. At the moment, I can mark traffic and give it a maximum bandwidth and a minimum guaranteed bandwidth, so far so good. What I would like to do is the following: In stead of defining a min/max for a certain type of traffic (e.g. http, ftp whatever), I would like to define a "minimum guaranteed bandwidth per connection". e.g. An application connecting to port X would get 10kbit/...

...ed in order? For instance, suppose an application requests that a file be deleted, and then that another file be moved to an unrelated place. Will these events always happen in that order? Or to put it another way, if something unexpected happens in the meantime (say the computer crashes), is it guaranteed that just the second action won't have been performed (i.e. that the second action was done first and the crash happened just after that)? How about if a file is written (and closed) and then a different file is moved? Is it possible that the second file gets moved before all the data is...

...ng that their processes are documented/reliable/...? I''ve tried to find this info at the Web sites of several companies, but their information tends to be long on terms like "minimal downtime" and "hassle-free nightly backups" and short on terms like "99.9% uptime guaranteed". There''s no visibility of e.g. how their backups are stored - whether they''re offsite at a secured facility somewhere, or a bunch of discs bouncing around in an operator''s car every night. At this point, my impression is that hosting companies in general are focus...

> Then why does the Release Note say > " the operation is guaranteed to not overflow". It means that the person who wrote the IR has guaranteed that there's no overflow (by some means) so LLVM can assume it during optimisation. This guarantee might come from doing explicit checks before executing the add/sub; or perhaps from performing the operation after...

There is PostDominatorTree for determining post-dominance. Even if A post-dominates B and B is executed, that doesn't guarantee that A will be executed. For example, there could be an infinite loop in-between. Strong post-dominance makes the stronger guarantee that there will be no infinite loop from B to A. Do we have anything in LLVM for determining strong post-dominance and in general for

Hi, Let's say we have a 32-bit architecture where 64-bit additions are done using 2 operations. Instructions are defined as follow in TableGen: defm ADD64 : ALU32<"add", 1, 1, addc>; defm ADD64C : ALU32<"addrc", 1, 2, adde>; Let's assume that the carry bit is implicit and that the 2 operations must *always* be stuck together for the 64-bit add to

...r code at all? 2. What ABI guarantees exactly are we making with this convention? - Is it worth asking LLVM to commit to a particular convention? - If not, what exactly is LLVM willing to guarantee? - Only calls to module-internal functions? - Calls to functions whose implementation is guaranteed to be compiled with this exact version of the compiler? - Some coarser degree of stability? 3. If we do publish this, what name do we use? - Does not putting LLVM in the name imply that this is some portable thing? - Should we put something like "unstable" in the name to en...

...<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> After reading the nice blog post about _ExtInt, I was wondering whether >> operations on i128/i256 and more generally on integer types in LLVM are >> guaranteed to be constant time or not. > I don't believe there's any such guarantee even for normal 8/16/32/64 > -bit integers. Right. I would expect this to be implementation / target dependent. The maximum bit width of an integer may also be target specific. For example, some targets may no...

Hi, I thought I had a workaround for live migration crashing (I''ve been looking at the SLES 3.0.2 9742c code.), but I found that I was getting filesystem errors. I''m wondering if the problem is races in data being written to the backing storage. When migrating a domain, before the domain is started on the new host, you have to guarantee that all the domU vbd data is out of

...to TCO of a non-recursive tail call as sibling call optimization, but I'm going to refer to that generically as TCO. Often, functional languages like Scheme have a language-level requirement that TCO occurs for any call in the tail position, and this is usually why users of LLVM have asked for guaranteed TCO functionality. In my case, to implement vtable thunks and virtual member pointers in the IA32 Microsoft C++ ABI, I cannot simply forward the arguments to the callee without calling the copy constructor. If I can use a guaranteed tail call, I don't have to emit copy constructor calls, and...

.... What ABI guarantees exactly are we making with this convention? > - Is it worth asking LLVM to commit to a particular convention? > - If not, what exactly is LLVM willing to guarantee? > - Only calls to module-internal functions? > - Calls to functions whose implementation is guaranteed to be compiled > with this exact version of the compiler? > - Some coarser degree of stability? > 3. If we do publish this, what name do we use? > - Does not putting LLVM in the name imply that this is some portable thing? > - Should we put something like "unstable&qu...

...class numeric. The calculations performed to yield x imply that mathematically it should be an integer , but due to round-off errors, it might not be (and so in either direction). The error is however small, so round(x) will yield the appropriate integer value. Moreover, this integer values is guaranteed to be representable by an 'integer' class, that is -2^31 < x < 2^31, and logically it is an integer anyway. So I want to convert x from class 'numeric' to 'integer'. What is the most elegant, but always correct way, to achieve this conversion ? What comes to mind...

...t 12:32 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >> >>> From the user's point of view, I think it's still the same. As long as >>> LLVM is guaranteed to be undefined behavior-free (including any unknown >>> bugs), users are not guaranteed from getting undefined outputs. (And please >>> keep it in mind that we are talking about rare cases such as you created >>> ELF files by your own by hand or with a buggy tool.) >&...

On Apr 15, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Francois Pichet <pichet2000 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Let's say we have a 32-bit architecture where 64-bit additions are done using 2 operations. > > Instructions are defined as follow in TableGen: > defm ADD64 : ALU32<"add", 1, 1, addc>; > defm ADD64C : ALU32<"addrc", 1, 2, adde>; > >

...__attribute__((section(“foo”))) int y; And i compile and link these two object files together using lld. What assumptions can I make regarding alignment/padding between the two symbols? I’m comfortable getting an answer by reading the source, but that won’t tell if any properties i discover are guaranteed or just happenstance. Are all of the following guaranteed ? A) relative order of symbols within a TU is not modified by the linker B) No padding is inserted by the linker between symbols in a TU aside from that which was already inserted by the compiler/assembler C) When merging section A from inp...

As far Am Mi., 18. März 2020 um 11:34 Uhr schrieb Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com>: > >> There seems to be a bug in DI, see Felipe's answer. > Maybe I missed something. There seems to be no resolution to the problem. How can DA fix this without help from alias analysis? DependenceInfo is not using the AA interface correctly. Either DI has to be fixed, or another

Hi ZFS Team, I have a couple of questions... Assume that the maximum slab size that ZFS supports is x. (I am assuming there is a maximum.) An application does a (single) write(2) for 2x bytes. Does ZFS/COW guarantee that either all the 2x bytes are persistent or none at all? Consider a case where there is a panic after x bytes has gone to disk and the change propagated to the uber block. Do

My hfsc rule .. tc qdisc add dev eth2 handle 1: root hfsc iptables -t mangle -N ms-all iptables -t mangle -N ms-all-chains iptables -t mangle -N ms-prerouting iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j ms-prerouting iptables -t mangle -A ms-prerouting -j CONNMARK --restore-mark iptables -t mangle -A ms-prerouting -p udp --dport 4444 -j MARK --set-mark 1 iptables -t mangle -A ms-prerouting -p udp -m

Hi Francois, If you model the effect of your carry on the instructions, the scheduler (and the other backend passes) should ensure that nothing that affects the carry will be inserted between your two instructions (assuming they are issued with nothing affecting the carry in between in the first place). Therefore, you shouldn’t have to force them to be stuck together. If you still do, what Jakob

Hi Jakob, If glue operands are used by the scheduler to keep instructions together, why can't the register allocator also do this? Regards, Sam On 15/04/2013 23:12, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > On Apr 15, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Francois Pichet <pichet2000 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Let's say we have a 32-bit architecture where 64-bit additions are