search for: listmailer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Just a little patch for the drivers.list The "Cyber Power Systems Intelligent Series CP1500EAVRLCD" ups http://eu.cyberpowersystems.com/products/ups_systems/intelligent/cp1500eavrlcd.htm Got one here running (see: https://nut.stillbilde.net/cgi-bin/nut/upsstats.cgi?host=CyberPower at upsmonitor) Works flawlessly. Patch as follows:

> On Jan 22, 2020, at 19:49, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > In short, I hit a major stumbling block. I hadn't account for the fact that some atomic stores dependent on element type (float vs int for instance) for legality. I think this qualifies as a target/infrastructure bug. It should always be legal to cast the FP atomic load/store to integer. This

On 12/14/2013 05:18 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com > <mailto:resistor at mac.com>> wrote: > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Philip Reames > <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > >> undef + any == NaN (since undef can be NaN) or undef +

On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>wrote: > On 12/14/2013 05:18 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com >> <mailto:resistor at mac.com>> wrote: >> >> >> On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Philip Reames >> <listmail at philipreames.com

Hi Simon, Thanks for reposting the example, and looking at it more carefully, I think it is very similar to my first proposal. This was met with some resistance here because it dumps loop information in the vector preheader. Doing it this early, we want to emit this in the vectoriser, puts a restriction on (future) optimisations that transform vector loops to honour/update/support this intrinsic

Invitation accepted, I am happy to help out with reviews, like I did with the previous VP patches. And of course agreed that things should be well defined, and that we shouldn't paint ourselves in a corner, but I don't think that this is the case. And it's not that I am in a rush, but I don't think this change needs to be predicated on a big change landing first like the LV

> You have similar problems with https://reviews.llvm.org/D79100 The new revision D79100<https://reviews.llvm.org/D79100> solves your comment 1), and I don't think your comments2) and 3) apply as there are no vendor specific intrinsics involved at all here. Just to quickly discuss the optimisation pipeline, D79100<https://reviews.llvm.org/D79100> is a small extension for the

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > > On 01/07/2015 11:52 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >> >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com <mailto:resistor at mac.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm not aware of any such restriction, and I know of several LLVM based systems

Hi, I am investigating a difference in code generation between release and assert builds of llvm. The culprit is IndVarSimplify that comes up with different behavior on the same input: in the assertion build, it does do an extra 'INDVARS: Rewriting loop exit condition' After digging around, it seems that following change is the culprit: ----- Author: Philip Reames <listmail at

Thanks for sharing the known problem. I think to solve the problem properly, we need to fully understand why that assumption about dominance is there and the implications of removing it. It would be good if you could be more specific about your idea of nullptr or SCEV_unknown (eg which function would return those values and when), but returning nullptr from getAddExpr or getSCEVAtScope may be

On 01/07/2015 12:17 PM, Pete Cooper wrote: > >> On Jan 7, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com >> <mailto:arsenm2 at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com >>> <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On

I just saw this: https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-14-353-01 which includes this: " A remote attacker can send a carefully crafted packet that can overflow a stack buffer and potentially allow malicious code to be executed with the privilege level of the ntpd process. All NTP4 releases before 4.2.8 are vulnerable." "This vulnerability is resolved with NTP-stable4.2.8

Hi Jimmy, It's good to know that the problem is not specific to the case I ran into. May be you can provide your example as well, since Philip seems to be interested in some specific examples. If the assertion in getAddrExpr is deemed necessary, then I think a condition check would be the next best solution as it helps client code guard against such cases and make alternative arrangements to

On 02/24/2014 11:27 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Feb 24, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com > <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > >> >> On 02/24/2014 12:45 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 21, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Philip Reames >>> <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at

On 10/23/13 5:38 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com > <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > >>> The implementation of the two intrinsics is actually very similar. >>> In this case, the difference would be that llvm.stackmap does not >>> reserve space for patching, while

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > > On 01/07/2015 12:05 PM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >> >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 01/07/2015 11:52 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote:

On 10/23/13 10:03 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Oct 23, 2013, at 7:26 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com > <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > >> On 10/23/13 5:38 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Philip Reames >>> <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at

Hi, I abandoned that approach and followed Eli's suggestion, see somewhere earlier in this thread, and emit an intrinsic that represents/calculates the active mask. I've just uploaded a new revision for D79100 that implements this. Cheers. ________________________________ From: Simon Moll <Simon.Moll at EMEA.NEC.COM> Sent: 18 May 2020 13:32 To: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at

For what it's worth we did a similar thing, but overrode RTDyldMemoryManager directly This allowed us to control where the RAM was allocated too (e.g. guarantee it was in the low 4GB so we could use small memory model and avoid the mov rax, xxxxxxx; call rax code generated for x86)*, and also override findSymbol() to have the same behaviour as described in 4). --matt * later issues in not

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > Quoting from the google doc: "If we don’t know definition of some > function, we assume that it will not call @llvm.invariant.group.barrier(). > " > This part really really bugs me. We generally try to assume minimal > knowledge of external functions (i.e. they can do