search for: guaranteeing

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

Hi, can someone tell me whether applications can expect the write requests they make to be executed 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

Hello everyone, I''ve got a Rails app that''s going to replace an in-house application, where the customers are used to having to deal with maintaining their own servers and data. As these are non-IT customers, maintaining servers and data is a long way from their core business and thus quite costly for them. I''m hoping to slice their costs by removing the requirement

> 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 a sext so that the

...uted, 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 guaranteeing that if B is executed, then A will also be executed? Bjarke -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150708/ac55c312/attachment.html>

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

On Feb 20, 2013, at 7:52 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 20, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 06:30:53PM -0800, John McCall wrote: >>> On Feb 20, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:18 PM, John McCall

> On Apr 22, 2020, at 12:24 AM, Roman Lebedev via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:35 AM Adrien Guinet via llvm-dev > <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 >>

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

Some frontends for LLVM require that LLVM perform tail call optimization (TCO) for correctness. Internally, LLVM refers 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

On 23 Feb 2013, at 00:26, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 20, 2013, at 7:52 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: >> On Feb 20, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 06:30:53PM -0800, John McCall wrote: >>>> On Feb 20, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Richard Smith <richard at

Hello, Suppose I have x, which is a variable of 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

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 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 >>>

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>; > >

Suppose i write // foo.cpp __attribute__((section(“foo”))) int x; // bar.cpp __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

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