search for: localcaching

Hi, Encounter a compilation issue related to c++. Software versions: - gcc 4.7.4 - llvm git commit 98a1ca117e6743dd7f2d505443a96f591d083eab 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

Hello, http://llvm.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,

Hi I am been trying in vain to auto-gen models by reverse-engineering mysql using RMRE. It complains mysql2 gem missing but as seen in my Rails environment below, it is there. Here''s my Rails environment and RMRE error. Experts... please help! Thanks a ton in advance!! === Ruby version 1.9.2 (x86_64-linux) RubyGems version 1.3.7 Rack version 1.2 Rails version 3.0.3 Active Record

Lighthouse ticket: https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/4452 I have recently been working on some gems that utilize ActiveSupport::Cache and ran into some issues with the different implementations handling the same functionality differently. One of the issues was that I couldn''t rely on expiring entries with the :expires_in option. MemCacheStore takes this

...e cluster config has been updated with: <dlm plock_ownership="1" plock_rate_limit="0"/> <gfs_controld plock_rate_limit="0"/> gfs2_tool getargs /mnt/backup statfs_percent 0 data 2 suiddir 0 quota 0 posix_acl 0 upgrade 0 debug 0 localflocks 0 localcaching 0 ignore_local_fs 0 spectator 0 hostdata jid=1:id=2752514:first=0 locktable lockproto gfs2_tool df -H /mnt/backup: SB lock proto = "lock_dlm" SB lock table = "cybercenter:backup" SB ondisk format = 1801 SB multihost format = 1900 Block size = 4096 Journals = 2 Res...

+pcc who added the NativeObjectStream class Looks like a known gcc bug, fixed in 4.8: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53613 Not sure what we do in cases like this, if it is a gcc bug. On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 2:50 AM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 08, 2016 at 11:02:37AM +0000, sylvain.bertrand at gmail.com > wrote: > > Hi, >

Thank you very much for the references, we've missed this discussion from last week. Seeing that the RFC hasn’t got any new responses since Wed 12th, is now the time to declare that the community has accepted the proposal, and to update the docs? Or is there any formal deadline for objections to be raised? -----Original Message----- From: meinersbur at googlemail.com [mailto:meinersbur at

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:34 PM, <katya.romanova at sony.com> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > > > Thank you for the clarification J. > > > > 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 >

Hi Steven and Peter, I think we resolved all the misunderstanding/concerns that we had with the proposal and decided that we don’t have to implement heavy-weight synchronization solutions (such as read-write locks, etc). Lightweight solution is expected to work on MacOS and Windows (however, there might be issues with Windows supporting non-NTFS file systems). There are two options for the

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