search for: longest_match

...e R or R packages in publications. Type 'demo()' for some demos, 'help()' for on-line help, or 'help.start()' for an HTML browser interface to help. Type 'q()' to quit R. ==13521== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) ==13521== at 0x5D2740: longest_match (deflate.c:1121) ==13521== by 0x5D3BB6: deflate_slow (deflate.c:1595) ==13521== by 0x5D30EB: deflate (deflate.c:790) ==13521== by 0x5D4D21: do_flush (gzio.c:757) ==13521== by 0x5D4F39: gzclose (gzio.c:991) ==13521== by 0x44AC22: gzfile_close (connections.c:1035) ==13521== by 0x44A...

Most fixes are trivial. The one from Alex is fixing a real bug that several users have reported. Alex sent the patch half a year ago and it was not yet integrated. The patch "Use /proc/mounts instead of /etc/mtab" is a repost. The patch "btrfs-receive optionally honors the end-cmd" is a preparation step to allow backup tools to multiplex a single communication stream (e.g. a

...ckle this one myself. Particularly considering that I've no idea what you two are yapping about, so it will be a good learning experience. I didn't want to interfere with you in any way but I was working on this just this week, though from a completely different background: In zlib's longest_match() (which happens to contain the hottest loop in deflate()) there's a loop with this layout: do { if (something) continue; while (cond && cond && cond && cond && cond) { } } while (something_else); The inner while loop is freezing cold. This is one of the...

On 2013-06-12 18:15 , Chandler Carruth wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen > <stoklund at 2pi.dk <mailto:stoklund at 2pi.dk>> wrote: > > It predates the block frequency interface. It just needs to be > hooked up, patches welcome. It would also be nice to remove the > floating point computations from the spill placement

...gt; > ... which is exactly what we want. Patrick, I would appreciate it if > you > could rerun your tests on PPC and let me know if this helps. :) > Aside from this syntactic loop stuff, I was looking over gzip some more and found another area that could be improved. In gzip's longest_match function, part of the code generated by CBE looks like this: l13_shortcirc_next_2E_11: l8_chain_length_2E_039 = (((l2_tmp_2E_182) ? (4294967295u) : (0u))) + l8_chain_length_2E_1; .. some other code ... l13_loopcont_2E_0: ... some other code ... l2_tmp_2E_182 = l8_tmp_2E_180 > l8_m...

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > It predates the block frequency interface. It just needs to be hooked up, > patches welcome. It would also be nice to remove the floating point > computations from the spill placement code. Cool, if Diego doesn't beat me to it, I may send you a patch as that seems easy and obviously

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > > I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C > > compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code, > > and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without > > syntactic loops). > > Yup, this is EXACTLY what is

I just had a quick play with gzip compression on a filesystem and the result was the machine grinding to a halt while copying some large (.wav) files to it from another filesystem in the same pool. The system became very unresponsive, taking several seconds to echo keystrokes. The box is a maxed out AMD QuadFX, so it should have plenty of grunt for this. Comments? Ian

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

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C > compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code, > and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without > syntactic loops). Yup, this is EXACTLY what is going on. I took this very simple C function: int Array[1000]; void test(int