search for: indeterministically

Hello, some time ago I reported a bug, where we saw indeterministic behaviour of rsync (all versions since 2.5), when having the same file appearing in multiple sources. Sometimes the file in the first source was copied, other times the file was copied from one of the other sources. The attached mstest.tgz contains a test to reproduce the behaviour under darwin and solaris. The bug did

...[2,] -0.05999599-0.6931185i -1.4558785+0.66410894i 0.8503606-1.0104882i [3,] -1.29420594-1.0878549i 0.7834801+0.01872038i -0.6378357-0.6318547i > y = sapply(1:10000,function(i) det(m)); plot.ts(y) # may need repetition > var(y) [1] 3.940272 The plot shows that the sign of det alternates indeterministically (at least for some m generated this way, like the m attached in the m.RData file). I note that a similar problem was reported in http://www.r-project.org/nocvs/mail/r-devel/2002/0139.html but I couldn't find a report of this particular problem. I would suggest to make det compatible with comp...

This fixes a somewhat indeterministic corruption problem on nv17 when there is stuff going on the other fifos (e.g. gallium but I've also reproduced it with an app just SIFM-ing memory around): in some cases it made the blits the X server had scheduled use the wrong pitch. Signed-off-by: Francisco Jerez <currojerez at riseup.net> --- src/nv04_exa.c | 22 ++++++++++++---------- 1

...virtio device being a bond master is confusing/unexpected. 2. virtio device being both a master and a slave is confusing. 3. configuration of a master may have different semantics than configuration of a slave. 4. two para-virt devices may create a loop (or rather will be bound to each other indeterministically, depending on which spawns first). 5. there is no user configuration AFAIR in existing patch, VM admin won't be able to prevent the bond. Separate netdev we can make removable even if it's spawned automatically. 6. XDP redirect use-case (or any explicit use of the virtio slave) (...

...virtio device being a bond master is confusing/unexpected. 2. virtio device being both a master and a slave is confusing. 3. configuration of a master may have different semantics than configuration of a slave. 4. two para-virt devices may create a loop (or rather will be bound to each other indeterministically, depending on which spawns first). 5. there is no user configuration AFAIR in existing patch, VM admin won't be able to prevent the bond. Separate netdev we can make removable even if it's spawned automatically. 6. XDP redirect use-case (or any explicit use of the virtio slave) (...

...at 8:48 AM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Nadav, > > As I peel this onion, it looks like you might know something about > InnerLoopVectorizer::addRuntimeCheck. > What does it do, and can it be causing the below described issue? Could > resuming somehow (indeterministically) switch the order of PHIs in the > original code? > > Thanks a lot. > > Sergei. > > --- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by > The Linux Foundation > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: llvmdev-bounces...

Nadav, As I peel this onion, it looks like you might know something about InnerLoopVectorizer::addRuntimeCheck. What does it do, and can it be causing the below described issue? Could resuming somehow (indeterministically) switch the order of PHIs in the original code? Thanks a lot. Sergei. --- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On...

Hi, Thanks for the input. In my ptr_test.O1.ll, the two loops should fall into the last case due to loop rotations. And I think we should handle that case. I propose to check the dominance relation between loop predecessor blocks of the two loops if there is no dominance relation between their loop headers just like case three. The only thing I'm not pretty sure is that is there guarantee to

...codeaurora.org> > wrote: > > > Nadav, > > > > As I peel this onion, it looks like you might know something about > > InnerLoopVectorizer::addRuntimeCheck. > > What does it do, and can it be causing the below described issue? > > Could resuming somehow (indeterministically) switch the order of PHIs > > in the original code? > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > Sergei. > > > > --- > > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, > > hosted by The Linux Foundation > > > > > >> ---...

Hello everybody, I have a case of suspected indeterminism and I would like to verify that it is not a known issue before I dig deep into it. It seems to happen during PreVerifier pass ("Preliminary module verification"). The little I understand/assume about it, a verifier pass is not supposed to change the code (or is it?) but in debug stream I see the following: Common predecessor:

...ren't they? Perhaps a bad wording. Both master and member would be better. > > 3. configuration of a master may have different semantics than > > configuration of a slave. > > 4. two para-virt devices may create a loop (or rather will be bound > > to each other indeterministically, depending on which spawns first). > > For 2 virtio devices, we can disable the bond to make it deterministic. Do you mean the hypervisor can or is there a knob in virtio_net to mask off features? Would that require re-probe of the virtio device? > > 5. there is no user configurat...

...ren't they? Perhaps a bad wording. Both master and member would be better. > > 3. configuration of a master may have different semantics than > > configuration of a slave. > > 4. two para-virt devices may create a loop (or rather will be bound > > to each other indeterministically, depending on which spawns first). > > For 2 virtio devices, we can disable the bond to make it deterministic. Do you mean the hypervisor can or is there a knob in virtio_net to mask off features? Would that require re-probe of the virtio device? > > 5. there is no user configurat...

...; wrote: >> >>> Nadav, >>> >>> As I peel this onion, it looks like you might know something about >>> InnerLoopVectorizer::addRuntimeCheck. >>> What does it do, and can it be causing the below described issue? >>> Could resuming somehow (indeterministically) switch the order of PHIs >>> in the original code? >>> >>> Thanks a lot. >>> >>> Sergei. >>> >>> --- >>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, >>> hosted by The Linux Foundation >&gt...

...rtio device being both a master and a slave is confusing. vlans are like this too, aren't they? > 3. configuration of a master may have different semantics than > configuration of a slave. > 4. two para-virt devices may create a loop (or rather will be bound > to each other indeterministically, depending on which spawns first). For 2 virtio devices, we can disable the bond to make it deterministic. > 5. there is no user configuration AFAIR in existing patch, VM admin > won't be able to prevent the bond. Separate netdev we can make > removable even if it's spawn...

Hi, Recently I got a crash when I tried to analysis a program with ScalarEvolution AliasAnalysis(SCEV-AA for short). It turns out to be a (possibly) incorrect assertion inside the CompareSCEVComplexity routine. The simplest solution would be just remove that assertion but I also found that the surrounding logics on calculating SCEV cost seems to be incorrect either. Thus I want to discuss with

...a bad wording. Both master and member would be better. > > > > 3. configuration of a master may have different semantics than > > > configuration of a slave. > > > 4. two para-virt devices may create a loop (or rather will be bound > > > to each other indeterministically, depending on which spawns first). > > > > For 2 virtio devices, we can disable the bond to make it deterministic. > > Do you mean the hypervisor can or is there a knob in virtio_net to mask > off features? Hypervisor can do it too. And it really should: specifying 2 devi...

On 21. Aug 2020, at 10:38, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 08:11:30PM +0200, Jan Walzer wrote: >> Hi Lists, >> >> I currently have the issue of wanting to use emu-system-x86_64 on a ppc64le platform. >> >> It is imperative to pass the "-accel tcg,thread=multi” parameter to qemu >> when starting an

I''ve been having great "fun" testing the new (Puppetised) build end-to-end for several days now. The majority of the fun has been coming from vendor packages (no names mentioned), typically with conflicting permissions on files, or perhaps different home directories, UIDs for the app users so it matters in which order you do things in. My current methodology is to go through

Hi Daniel, > On 21. Aug 2020, at 11:07, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:00:27AM +0200, Jan Walzer wrote: >> On 21. Aug 2020, at 10:38, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 08:11:30PM +0200, Jan Walzer wrote: >>>> Hi Lists, >>>> >>>> I currently

On 1/22/2018 1:31 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 01:49:58PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:25:41AM -0800, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: >>>> >>>> On 1/17/2018 11:02 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> On