search for: l202

...s %Foo, %Foo* %1, i32 0, i32 0 store %_VtableFoo* @_VtableFoo, %_VtableFoo** %2 The issue is when it comes to actually calling the method. Up to this point, the code generates the expected IR (https://github.com/mukul-rathi/bolt/blob/vtable/src/llvm-backend/llvm_ir_codegen/expr_codegen.cc#L188:L202 <https://github.com/mukul-rathi/bolt/blob/vtable/src/llvm-backend/llvm_ir_codegen/expr_codegen.cc#L188:L202>) %5 = load %Foo*, %Foo** %_var_y0 %6 = getelementptr inbounds %Foo, %Foo* %5, i32 0, i32 0 %7 = load %_VtableFoo*, %_VtableFoo** %6 %8 = getelementptr inbounds %_VtableFoo, %...

...andling in the >>> calling function. >> It looks to me that not all error path of platform_get_irq() were loggd. > How do you think about to clarify the handling of the error code ?-EPROBE_DEFER? any more? > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.6.3/source/drivers/base/platform.c#L202 Aha, it looks to me that I'm on the wrong branch. Sorry. > > >> And git grep told me there're other users of platform_get_irq() that check and log by themselves. > Source code analysis can point further update candidates out, can't it? > https://git.kernel.org/pub/...

When trying to build the 11.0-CURRENT clang 3.5 on powerpc64 I ran into a violation of C++ accessibility rules (for private) that stopped the compile. So not the usual defect category. (This was a bootstrapping procedure as powerpc/powerpc64 FreeBSD world’s clang has an odd status and getting from 3.4 under 10.1-STABLE to 3.5 on 11.0-CURRENT is not automatic.) Given the language rules and

With the ATI bug I was hitting earlier fixed, only my btrfs partition continues to show high cpu usage for some operations. Rsync, git pull, git checkout and svn up are typicall operations which trigger the high cpu usage. As an example, this perf report is from using git checkout to change to a new branch; the change needed to checkout 208 files out of about 1600 total files. du(1) reports