search for: localcache

...05443a96f591d083eab Build log: Scanning dependencies of target LLVMLTO [ 53%] Building CXX object lib/LTO/CMakeFiles/LLVMLTO.dir/Caching.cpp.o /tmp/pkgs/llvm/lib/LTO/Caching.cpp: In lambda function: /tmp/pkgs/llvm/lib/LTO/Caching.cpp:74:7: error: looser throw specifier for 'virtual llvm::lto::localCache(std::string, llvm::lto::AddFileFn)::<lambda(unsigned int, llvm::StringRef)>::CacheStream::~CacheStream()' In file included from /tmp/pkgs/llvm/include/llvm/LTO/Caching.h:18:0, from /tmp/pkgs/llvm/lib/LTO/Caching.cpp:14: /tmp/pkgs/llvm/include/llvm/LTO/LTO.h:271:11: error:...

...org/docs/GettingStarted.html#software lists "GCC >=4.7.0" among requirements for building LLVM. However, my attempt of building LLVM+Clang with gcc 4.7.3 has failed with a multitude of errors, such as: lib/LTO/Caching.cpp:74:7: error: looser throw specifier for 'virtual llvm::lto::localCache(std::string, llvm::lto::AddFileFn)::<lambda(unsigned int, llvm::StringRef)>::CacheStream::~CacheStream()' In file included from LTO/Caching.h:18:0, from LTO/Caching.cpp:14: LTO/LTO.h:271:11: error: overriding 'virtual llvm::lto::NativeObjectStream::~NativeObjectStre...

...1.9.2 (x86_64-linux) RubyGems version 1.3.7 Rack version 1.2 Rails version 3.0.3 Active Record version 3.0.1 Action Pack version 3.0.3 Active Resource version 3.0.3 Action Mailer version 3.0.3 Active Support version 3.0.3 Middleware ActionDispatch::Static Rack::Lock ActiveSupport::Cache::Strategy::LocalCache Rack::Runtime Rails::Rack::Logger ActionDispatch::ShowExceptions ActionDispatch::RemoteIp Rack::Sendfile ActionDispatch::Callbacks ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::ConnectionManagement ActiveRecord::QueryCache ActionDispatch::Cookies ActionDispatch::Session::CookieStore ActionDispatch::Flash Actio...

...leStore * Escape key values so they will work as file names on all file systems, be consistent, and case sensitive * Use a hash algorithm to segment the cache into sub directories so that a large cache doesn''t exceed file system limits. * FileStore can be slow so implement the LocalCache strategy to cache reads for the duration of a request. * Add cleanup method to keep the disk from filling up with expired entries. * Fix increment and decrement to use file system locks so they are consistent between processes. MemCacheStore * Support all keys. Previously keys with sp...

Hi, I'm trying to get more performance out of my DRBD cluster with gfs2. It seems that our gfs2 implementation is quit slow. When running the ping_pong test we get no more than a 1000 locks/sec on the disk. ./ping_pong /mnt/backup/test.dat 4 879 locks/sec The cluster config has been updated with: <dlm plock_ownership="1" plock_rate_limit="0"/>

...anning dependencies of target LLVMLTO > > [ 53%] Building CXX object lib/LTO/CMakeFiles/LLVMLTO.dir/Caching.cpp.o > > /tmp/pkgs/llvm/lib/LTO/Caching.cpp: In lambda function: > > /tmp/pkgs/llvm/lib/LTO/Caching.cpp:74:7: error: looser throw specifier > for 'virtual llvm::lto::localCache(std::string, llvm::lto::AddFileFn)::<lambda(unsigned > int, llvm::StringRef)>::CacheStream::~CacheStream()' > > In file included from /tmp/pkgs/llvm/include/llvm/LTO/Caching.h:18:0, > > from /tmp/pkgs/llvm/lib/LTO/Caching.cpp:14: > > /tmp/pkgs/llvm/in...

...ngStarted.html#software lists "GCC >=4.7.0" among requirements for building LLVM. > However, my attempt of building LLVM+Clang with gcc 4.7.3 has failed with a multitude of errors, such as: > > lib/LTO/Caching.cpp:74:7: error: looser throw specifier for 'virtual llvm::lto::localCache(std::string, llvm::lto::AddFileFn)::<lambda(unsigned int, llvm::StringRef)>::CacheStream::~CacheStream()' > In file included from LTO/Caching.h:18:0, > from LTO/Caching.cpp:14: > LTO/LTO.h:271:11: error: overriding 'virtual llvm::lto::NativeObjectStream::~N...

...bypass reading > from cache altogether. Will this work? Does new C++ LTO API has other > advantages or fixes other issues with respect of caching/avoiding data > races? > You probably want to reimplement what Caching.cpp is doing in the legacy API. I wouldn't try to reuse the lto::localCache function from the legacy API or anything like that. Peter The reason why I’m asking all these questions is because I need to decide > whether I should write my own straightforward patch or to change legacy C > LTO API to do what new C++ LTO API is doing (which I suspect will much more >...

...the cache file, and bypass reading from cache altogether. Will this work? Does new C++ LTO API has other advantages or fixes other issues with respect of caching/avoiding data races? You probably want to reimplement what Caching.cpp is doing in the legacy API. I wouldn't try to reuse the lto::localCache function from the legacy API or anything like that. Peter The reason why I’m asking all these questions is because I need to decide whether I should write my own straightforward patch or to change legacy C LTO API to do what new C++ LTO API is doing (which I suspect will much more work). I apprec...

Hi Peter, Thank you for the clarification ☺. I’m sure you have a very good understanding of how much efforts it will take to write a patch for legacy C LTO to implement caching the same way it’s done in new C++ LTO API. How easy/difficult do you think it will be (very roughly, in LOC)? Do you anticipate that a lot of existing legacy C LTO infrastructure will have to be rewritten? Could this also