search for: intermix

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 149 matches for "intermix".

Did you mean: interix
2011 Jan 06
2
[LLVMdev] Identify Loops from within FunctionPass, or possible to intermix different types of Passes?
...highest level, it should be a FunctionPass. However, in order to identify loops and loop-nest levels, it should also be a LoopPass. Is there a reasonably simple way to identify loop(s) within a function under FunctionPass? (Any existing LLVM code that I can take a look?) OR Is it possible to intermix different types of LLVM Passes? E.g. class MyPass: public FunctionPass, public LoopPass{ ... public: bool runOnFunction(...); bool runOnLoop(...); ... }; Does this make any sense? I haven't seem to find any existing LLVM pass under such uses. Thank you very much Chuck -------...
2011 Jan 06
0
[LLVMdev] Identify Loops from within FunctionPass, or possible to intermix different types of Passes?
...ld also be a LoopPass. > > Is there a reasonably simple way to identify loop(s) within a function under FunctionPass? > > (Any existing LLVM code that I can take a look?) Your FunctionPass can use LoopInfo to get this information. - Devang > > OR > > Is it possible to intermix different types of LLVM Passes? > > E.g. > > class MyPass: public FunctionPass, public LoopPass{ > ... > public: > bool runOnFunction(...); > bool runOnLoop(...); > ... > }; > > Does this make any sense? > I haven't seem to find any existing LLV...
2007 Apr 12
3
Comment from OpenLDAP developer regarding "deferring operations"
...seeing, Timo? -Ben --------------------------------------------- I'd note that if your client is performing search + bind on the same connection in an asynchronous manner, then the server behavior as per RFC4511 is undefined, since a server is not supposed to be willing to handle operations intermixed with binds until a bind is concluded. That is, any operation can be multiplexed on a single LDAP connection __except__ binds, which must be serialized. A more appropriate client for that type of operations would need to use at least 2 connections, one for searches and one for binds, and the one...
2013 Feb 28
5
IMAP folders sort order
...ting in some weird order. (I suppose, it is filesystem directory order) Previously, with Courier, it was sorted, i.e., the INBOX was the first, followed by other system folders. This is not a problem with our webmail, because it sorts folders by its own. But with some IMAP clients, we have folders intermixed. Is there a way to influence the folder sort order in Dovecot? WBR, valery
2011 Mar 05
0
[LLVMdev] Two languages in the same IR
Hey, we are intermixing LLVM IR generated from C code with IR generated from our custom RenderMan frontend. I am not sure whether this is relevant for you, but in our restricted setting (the C code does not change frequently and we have full control at link time) this works flawless. Best, Ralf Am 05.03.2011 11:42...
2013 Jan 19
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
On 1/19/2013 1:55 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > -ffast-math is *totally* different from these attributes, and in fact > -ffast-math is specifically not modeled as a function attribute because > it changes the fundamental semantics of an operation. It's not different at all. The user may want to compile parts of the program with -ffast-math, and parts without it. Same
2013 Jan 21
1
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
...asses, but provide (relaxed) semantics for the optimizations themselves to obey. The optimizations, inlining, etc. happen at the LLVM IR level (below clang), so I'll talk about the IR level now. At the IR level, fast-math flags are per-instruction semantic flags and flagged instructions can be intermixed with non-fast-math flagged instructions. Dropping the flags is conservative, so at the worst case they will be dropped, but they will usually be kept and will always be optimized correctly and safely when intermixed. Clang currently only has a global mode with -ffast-math, but there's nothin...
2011 Nov 10
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
...vectorization opportunities are close by (in some sense), >>>> such that we get most of the speedup by locking at a subset of the problem. >>> >>> Yes, I agree. That makes a lot of sense. >>> >>> What would be even better is if the loop unroller would intermix >>> statements from the loops where possible instead of leaving it to the >>> vectorizer to do all of the grouping after the fact. That, I fear, is a >>> whole other project. >> >> First, I do not understand the 'even better' here. To me it would be &g...
2015 Mar 13
2
Some basic questions
...and run it. I am wondering how I would set up the bridge device if I run both at the same time. Would I be able to set up another bridge device (br1) encompassing the same physical eth0 port and a new tap1 virtual device. It doesn't feel right... And even if I could, I wonder if there would be intermixing of vpn traffic appearing on the two tap ports. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.tinc-vpn.org/pipermail/tinc/attachments/20150313/73594160/attachment.html>
2011 Mar 05
4
[LLVMdev] Two languages in the same IR
Hi all, Is it possible to merge two different languages in the same IR? With Java, JNI specifies a whole lot of rules to make C structures and PCS work with Java classes, if we were to do the same thing in IR, would that work? Is there anyone doing this today (with any language)? -- cheers, --renato http://systemcall.org/ Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at
2011 Nov 08
3
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
...t; most of the vectorization opportunities are close by (in some sense), > >> such that we get most of the speedup by locking at a subset of the problem. > > > > Yes, I agree. That makes a lot of sense. > > > > What would be even better is if the loop unroller would intermix > > statements from the loops where possible instead of leaving it to the > > vectorizer to do all of the grouping after the fact. That, I fear, is a > > whole other project. > > First, I do not understand the 'even better' here. To me it would be > great if on...
2019 Oct 03
2
[RFC] Using basic block attributes to implement non-default floating point environment
...function. For many practical application this is unacceptable. The reason, as you're likely aware, that the constrained FP operations must be used within the entire function is that, if you mix the constrained FP operations with the normal ones, there's no way to prevent code motion from intermixing them. The solution I recall being discussed to this problem of a function which requires constrained operations only in part is outlining in Clang - this does introduce function-call overhead (although perhaps some MI-level inlining pass could mitigate that in part), but otherwise permits normal...
2011 Oct 26
4
Some questions about theoretical gluster failures.
...is the whole filesystem hosed or is that node reference really a group reference and the gluster filesystem continues with the loss of that node''s files? ie can any gluster node replace a mountpoint node and does that happen transparently? (I haven''t tested this). - can you intermix distributed and mirrored volumes? This is of particular interest since some of our users want to have replicated data and some don''t care. Many thanks hjm -- Harry Mangalam - Research Computing, OIT, Rm 225 MSTB, UC Irvine [ZOT 2225] / 92697 Google Voice Multiplexer: (949) 478-44...
2013 Jan 19
3
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang
Sorry, I realized I hadn't replied to this. On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek < kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 1/14/2013 4:57 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > >> >> I absolutely think that when a function has an optimization attribute, >> that applies to the code in the function and all code inlined into the >> function. If
2014 Jan 04
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Goal for 3.5: Library-friendly headers
On Jan 3, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >> While having different components of LLVM and consumers of LLVM able to intermix NDEBUG and !NDEBUG built code freely without ABI issues is nice-to-have in my book, the functionality provided by AssertingVH is significantly more nice-to-have, and I don't see any easy ways to contain or limit the exposure of this facility to library-level consumers. > > I hadn’t consi...
2002 Mar 15
3
RIS and PXELINUX
...to control our remote installs and thought that PXELINUX sound like a great way to go. However, I've got multiple hurdles and I'd like some advice before I get myself dug in too deep... We currently have Solaris Jumpstart and Windows RIS running in the department and now we would like to intermix Linux PXELINUX booting. Any suggestions on how this should be designed? I tried a really quick test, following the instructions to set up a tftp server and dhcp server, but the windows RIS server always answered the tftp request. We did have the next-server option listed in the DHCP server conf...
2015 Mar 27
2
[LLVMdev] Question about load clustering in the machine scheduler
Hi, I have a program with over 100 loads (each with a 10 cycle latency) at the beginning of the program, and I can't figure out how to get the machine scheduler to intermix ALU instructions with the loads to effectively hide the latency. It seems the issue is with load clustering. I restrict load clustering to 4 at a time, but when I look at the debug output, the loads are always being scheduled based on the fact that that are clustered. e.g. Pick Top CLUSTER Sched...
2014 Jan 03
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Goal for 3.5: Library-friendly headers
...w can we support AssertingVH, which behaves as a POD-like struct around a pointer in NDEBUG, and as a class with significant (important) functionality to implement asserts on dangling value handles in !NDEBUG builds? > > While having different components of LLVM and consumers of LLVM able to intermix NDEBUG and !NDEBUG built code freely without ABI issues is nice-to-have in my book, the functionality provided by AssertingVH is significantly more nice-to-have, and I don't see any easy ways to contain or limit the exposure of this facility to library-level consumers. I hadn’t considered Asse...
2010 Nov 07
1
[LLVMdev] Using MC Parser data
Hi, llvmdev! I have some thoughts about using the LLVM MC Parser's data to extract information about symbols like global data and 'functions' (labels with code following) intermixed with preprocessor directives (for example a C-like include file using function-like macros defined in the assembler source code). I'm looking at the MCContext class which is likely to own all symbols in the file and all sections. However, I do not see whether the MC parser gathers any data a...
2016 Feb 19
2
Maildir++ and fs-layout
Dear All, can I use Maildir++ Layout for private namespace and fs-layout for public namespace on the same server, provided that the hierarchy separator is the same (.)? Are all parts of dovecot (especially deliver, sieve and lmtp) compatible with fs-layout? Are there any restrictions I have to obey? - Chris