search for: laas

Hi, > On Jul 7, 2020, at 18:37, Stefanos Baziotis via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > Ah, that's important information I didn't have. Thank you! > > No problem, glad to help! > > To the rest of your thoughts, I certainly agree. One interesting question is why LAA > didn't use DA at all. Other than that, note that LAA is quite

Hi , The following loop fails to be vectorized since the load c[i] is casted as i64 and the store c[i] is double. The loop access analysis gives up since they are in different types. Since these two memory operations are in the same size, I believe the loop access analysis should return forward dependence and thus the loop can be vectorized. Any comments? Thanks, Jin #define N 1000 double

Hi everyone, I am in a real panic here and would appreciate any help. I have students not being able to save any files! I have a samba server that was joined to a win2k active directory and running for months. I dont know why, but now it isn't working correctly. This error is filling my logs: ------------------- libads/kerberos_verify.c:ads_keytab_verify_ticket(113)

Stefanos Baziotis via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Their most important difference is that DA is used for compile-time / > static checks while LAA is mainly used for generating run-time checks. Ah, that's important information I didn't have. Thank you! > Now, as for unifying them, if we mean something other than just putting > them in the same file,

Hi Ashutosh, > On Mar 16, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > From: Adam Nemet [mailto:anemet at apple.com <mailto:anemet at apple.com>] > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:48 AM > To: Nema, Ashutosh > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Loop

I have been looking into this small test case (Part A) where loop vectorization is disabled due to possible store-load forwarding conflict (Part B). As you can see, due to the presence of dependence distance 2 the loop is vectorizable only for a width of 2. However, the presence of dependence distance 15 (due to y[j-15]) results in store-load forwarding issue as store packet of y[16:17] (iteration

> On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:33 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > > I am about to post the patches to make LAA suitable for Loop Distribution. As you will hopefully find this will make the LAA more generic. I will cc you on the patches. > > Sure Adam. > > RuntimeCheckEmitter > “RuntimeCheckEmitter::addRuntimeCheck” > While creating

> On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:46 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > Thanks Adam for your reply. > > From: Adam Nemet [mailto:anemet at apple.com <mailto:anemet at apple.com>] > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 3:23 AM > To: Nema, Ashutosh > Cc: Hal Finkel; Philip Reames; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject:

Michael Kruse via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > AFAIK they are independent developments. LoopAccessAnalysis was > extracted out of the LoopVectorizer in 2015, and first developed in > 2013 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d517976758c8674bdcd4c74457f7a83f20e432c5) > > DependenceAnalysis was a from-scratch implementation from 2012 >

> On Mar 20, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > > Yes, this is what I was proposing above and here ;): > Thanks Adam it’s for confirming J NP :). > > > No, not hasLoopInvariantStore but hasAccessToLoopInvariantAddress. > Its only for invariant stores[not loads], Using ‘hasLoopInvariantStore’ (or a name with invariant store)

Hello, could you please have a look at this code posted on godbolt.org: https://godbolt.org/z/O-O-Q7 The problem is that inside the compute function, only the first loop vectorizes while the rest copies of it don't. But if I remove any of the for loops, then the rest vectorize successfully. Could you please confirm that this is a bug, otherwise give me more insight on why the vectorization

Hi, I've configured Samba as PDC. It is to serve Windows 98/2000/XP workstations. Firstly everything works fine but with adding new users to the domain there occurs serious trouble. The network printers begin to refuse access. And then I noticed that the workstations begin to refuse access too. smb.conf --- [global] netbios name = OBLR workgroup = X125 server

> On Jul 13, 2016, at 2:02 AM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:40 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com <mailto:chisophugis at gmail.com>> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13,

...tion_open = false rollback_db_transaction end if savepoint_open savepoint_open = false rollback_to_savepoint(savepoint_name) end raise end ensure commit_db_transaction if transaction_open release_savepoint(savepoint_name) if savepoint_open end Best regards, Laas

On 09/22/2017 12:03 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > Hi Hal, > > > 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>: > > > On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev >>> <llvm-dev at

Hi Hal, 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> : > > On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: > > > > On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: > > Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others, > *...* >

...can not be sure this migrate does what I expect it to do. Whereas if migrate would run on :app, I would know exactly what I get even with multiple sites of the same code at different versions all on the same database server. If someone can explain me this, I would appreciate it. Best regards, Laas Toom

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:40 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> Interesting. I'm not sure this is the right metric, however. There are >> lots of analyses that hold pointers to other analyses but don't need to. >> The analysis handle itself can be reacquired

On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: > > >> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> >> On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: >>> Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others, >>> *...* >>> >>> One thing that I’d

2017-09-21 22:22 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>: > > On 09/22/2017 12:03 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > Hi Hal, > > > 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > >> >> On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via