search for: o5

...ries) Wine doesn't work. Neither 1.1.27 (development), nor 1.0.1 (stable). It can't open object files -- there are no such object files. $ winecfg err:module:load_builtin_dll failed to load .so lib for builtin L"winex11.drv": libuuid.so.1: =52>7<>6=> >B:@KBL @0745;O5<K9 >1J5:B=K9 D09;: 5B B0:>3> D09;0 8;8 :0B0;>30 err:module:load_builtin_dll failed to load .so lib for builtin L"winex11.drv": libuuid.so.1: =52>7<>6=> >B:@KBL @0745;O5<K9 >1J5:B=K9 D09...

...the clients used a different name to connect to the server. It sounds like just changing the clients to ask for the FQDN would do the trick, but it doesn''t. The server has two interfaces, one public, one private; here''s the output from the EL5.1 client: [root@node-r1-u7-c28-p10-o5 ~]# puppetd --test --server=cob err: Could not retrieve configuration: Certificates were not trusted: hostname not match with the server certificate warning: Not using cache on failed configuration [root@node-r1-u7-c28-p10-o5 ~]# puppetd --test --server=cob.local err: Could not retrieve configurati...

Let's say I have 2 bytecode files, X.bc and Y.bc that I want to combine into Z.bc. Which of the following command sequences will produce more optimized code? Sequence 1: llvm-link -o tmp.bc X.bc Y.bc opt -std-compile-opts -o Z.bc tmp.bc Sequence 2: llvm-ld -O5 -o Z.bc X.bc Y.bc Without looking at details it seems like sequence 2 should produce the most optimized code. As a follow up, where does -std-compile-opts fall within -O1 to -O5? Thanks, Ryan

..."UNREACHABLE executed" error. LLC > generates code successfully with other standard register allocators > available. I haven't investigated the Sparc backend specifically but... My guess is this is related to this entry in SparcInstrInfo.td: let Uses = [O0, O1, O2, O3, O4, O5], hasDelaySlot = 1, isCall = 1, Defs = [O0, O1, O2, O3, O4, O5, O7, G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, D0, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14, D15] in { def CALL : InstSP<(outs), (ins calltarget:$dst), "call $dst",...

Hello, i posted a question about a possible ext3fs bug a few month ago. I see this kernel-msg in the messages: Oct 8 18:30:00 o5s kernel: EXT3-fs error (device sd(8,10)) in ext3_new_inode: error 28 Oct 8 18:35:00 o5s kernel: EXT3-fs error (device sd(8,10)) in ext3_new_inode: error 28 Oct 8 18:40:00 o5s kernel: EXT3-fs error (device sd(8,10)) in ext3_new_inode: error 28 they repead periodicaly, because a logging file is no...

Hello, When I run LLC with option "-O0 -march=sparc" on following testcase, fast register allocator crashes with "UNREACHABLE executed" error. LLC generates code successfully with other standard register allocators available. $ cat call.ll define void @test() nounwind { entry: %0 = tail call i32 (...)* @foo() nounwind tail call void (...)* @bar() nounwind ret void }

...cc-optzns the LLVM optimizers are run at > the following levels: > > Command line option LLVM optimizers run at > ------------------- ---------------------- > -O1 tiny amount of optimization > -O2 or -O3 -O1 > -O4 or -O5 -O2 > -O6 or better -O3 Hi Duncan, Out of curiosity, why do you follow this approach? People generally use -O2 or -O3. I'd recommend switching dragonegg to line those up with whatever you want people to use. -Chris

I tried llvm-gcc -c test.c llvm-gcc test.o llc -march=c test.bc -f -o test2.c Then I compiled both test.c and test2.c with sdcc, a compiler which lacks high-level optimization. The code generated from test2.c was bigger. Then I tried llvm-gcc -O5 -Os -c test.c llvm-gcc -O5 -Os test.o llc -march=c test.bc -f -o test2.c But it generated exactly the same code as the commands above. What is it that I'm doing wrong? I expected llvm to optimize my code for size, instead it gets worse. Philipp

...are run at >> the following levels: >> >> Command line option LLVM optimizers run at >> ------------------- ---------------------- >> -O1 tiny amount of optimization >> -O2 or -O3 -O1 >> -O4 or -O5 -O2 >> -O6 or better -O3 > > Hi Duncan, > > Out of curiosity, why do you follow this approach? People generally use -O2 or -O3. I'd recommend switching dragonegg to line those up with whatever you want people to use. note that thi...

I am using LLVM via the Adobe Alchemy project. I'm trying to upgrade LLVM within Alchemy (its v2.1 of opt is crashing), but am running into an issue with llvm-ld. Alchemy is passing -O5 to llvm-ld, but it seems that -O params are no longer accepted by llvm-ld v2.4+ ("llvm-ld: Unknown command line argument '-O5'. Try: 'llvm-ld --help'"). Are -O optimizations completely deprecated? Or is there an alternate way to pass them in? Thanks, aaron ----------...

...5041 * Q1 1 1652.7 1652.7 15.4417 0.0002969 *** Residuals 44 4709.2 107.0 --- Signif. codes: 0 `***' 0.001 `**' 0.01 `*' 0.05 `.' 0.1 ` ' 1 where Cond is a factor with three levels (A,B,C) and Q1 is a covariate. Now, simtest showed the following output > o5<-summary(simtest(D~Cond+Q1,conf.level=0.95,data=x,type="Tukey")) > o5 Simultaneous tests: Tukey contrasts Call: simtest.formula(formula = D ~ Cond + Q1, data = x, conf.level = 0.95, type = "Tukey") Tukey contrasts for factor Cond, covariable: Q1 Contrast mat...

I have been wondering why llvm-ld generates the same code with or without the option "-O5" so I looked at its source (llvm 2.2). And apparently, the options "-On" are accepted but never used! The program runs a fixed set of optimization passes, unless "-disable-opt" is specified. What is the reason for this? If this is intended, then the documentation should say...

I'm linking a program (my ellsif driver) that basically brings in most of the LLVM stuff: bitcode reading, optimizations, linking, and target code generation. All of a sudden, I'm getting the following when I run: [~/elsa/ellsif] dev% ./ellsif -v test/ofmt.i test/sieve.i -time-actions -O5 <premain>: CommandLine Error: Argument 'machine-licm' defined more than once! ellsif: CommandLine Error: Argument 'machine-licm' defined more than once! It seems like the constructor for this argument is being run twice. ellsif works as expected, but I'd like to figure...

...ERROR: compilation failed for package ?Matrix? * Removing ?/home/user/R/R-devel/library/Matrix? Can someone help me or give me a pointer what I'm making wrong? How can I get/include the missing shared library? Many thanks in advance Thomas Petzoldt #file: config.site CC=cc CFLAGS="-xO5 -xc99 -xlibmil -nofstore" CPICFLAGS=-Kpic F77=f95 FFLAGS="-O5 -libmil -nofstore" FPICFLAGS=-Kpic CXX=CC CXXFLAGS="-xO5 -xlibmil -nofstore" CXXPICFLAGS=-Kpic FC=f95 FCFLAGS=$FFLAGS FCPICFLAGS=-Kpic LDFLAGS=-L/opt/sun/sunstudio12/lib/amd64 SHLIB_LDFLAGS=-shared SHLIB_CXXLDFLA...

Hi folks, I've got an idea for something I may be able to do as a Link-Time- Optimization pass, but I can't seem to find how LTO gets used. My crude approach has been to compile LLVM for debugging, and then run gdb on llvm-ld with -O5 and two .bc files, trying to catch LTO in action. I've also scanned the compiled tools, and none of them appear to use the symbol 'createLLVMOptimizer' (or anything with 'lto', etc). The document at http://llvm.org/releases/2.1/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html doesn'...

...____________________________________ >>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__stat.ethz.ch_mailman_listinfo_r-2Ddevel&d=DwIGaQ&c=eRAMFD45gAfqt84VtBcfhQ&r=BK7q3XeAvimeWdGbWY_wJYbW0WYiZvSXAJJKaaPhzWA&m=o5-lZT7zAjFNU8C0Z9D7XaQO_2NGmhKF-IbGZFhSvO0&s=4cZ9rSLJAVnnjULGMCDPAclXHoc9_le3Z1DrZg0nQqg&e= >>>> >>> >> >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list...

Thanks, for the explanation. Still, I think this is surprising bahaviour which might be handled better. Best, Peter Am 20.10.2017 9:49 nachm. schrieb "I?aki ?car" <i.ucar86 at gmail.com>: > Hi Peter, > > 2017-10-20 21:33 GMT+02:00 Peter Meissner <retep.meissner at gmail.com>: > > Hey, > > > > I found this - for me - quite surprising and puzzling

...r clarity, the -O options are currently defined as: -O0 - synonym for -O1 -O1 - options to speed up compilation, not execution -O2 - simple/fast module/function optimizations -O3 - aggressive module/function optimizations (as well as -O2) -O4 - simple/fast link time optimizations (as well as -O3) -O5 - aggressive link time optimizations (as well as -O4) What I'm looking for is a list of equivalent "opt" options for each of the five optimization levels defined above. This supports language front ends that don't do their own optimization (e.g. Stacker). Thanks, Reid. --------...

I am compiling R-0.90.0 on alpha-dec-osf4.0 and it stops by giving the following message: cc: Error: ../../../R/src/main/gram.y, line 1365: In this declaration, parameter 1 has a different type than specified in an earlier declaration of this function. SEXP mkString(const char *s) -----^ cc: Error: ../../../R/src/main/gram.y, line 1365: In this declaration, the type of "mkString" is not

I am compiling R-0.90.0 on alpha-dec-osf4.0 and it stops by giving the following message: cc: Error: ../../../R/src/main/gram.y, line 1365: In this declaration, parameter 1 has a different type than specified in an earlier declaration of this function. SEXP mkString(const char *s) -----^ cc: Error: ../../../R/src/main/gram.y, line 1365: In this declaration, the type of "mkString" is not