search for: oneuse

Hi list, I just upgraded an AD DC from 4.1.17 to 4.2.10 (using jessie package), wbinfo -r someuser now fails randomly (well not THAT randomly I guess it depends on group membership) $ wbinfo -r oneuser failed to call wbcGetGroups: WBC_ERR_DOMAIN_NOT_FOUND Could not get groups for user oneuser $ wbinfo -r anotheruser [list of GIDs] wbinfo -u & wbinfo -g returns no error wbinfo -i oneuser & wbinfo -i anotheruser work fine I suspect that there is a relation with the switch to regular win...

...e, for several CentOS > versions, depending upon the application. there are also (at least in X) two ways to cut and paste: 1. select with mouse then paste with middle-click. 2. select with mouse, right-click "select", paste the right-click "paste". My understanding is that oneuses X facilities and the other is part of the desktop. I would surmise that Weston could be different. -- ---- Fred Smith -- fredex at fcshome.stoneham.ma.us ----------------------------- The Lord is like a strong tower. Those who do what is right can run to hi...

...other words, I believe we should start to think in terms of how profitable is a pattern. E.g., the source pattern as some cost and the destination patterns as some other cost. Applying the pattern should give us a profitability score, which would be higher when it produces dead code (i.e., what the oneUse check tries to identify in SDISel). Following that logic, we may get away with all the disabling specific patterns kind of thing. I.e., if something is not profitable it does not get applied. All in all, the syntax that your suggesting is reasonable (though IMHO MIR is going to limit our ability...

Is this the normal behavior now? Cutting text in gedit and pasting it into the terminal needs that the source application stays running? -- Leon

...gt; should a pattern only be applied if there is only one user? Is it > > valid if there are more that one users, if we cannot move something > > into the destination block can we still apply the pattern is we move > > the result in the source block, etc. > > The existing hasOneUse() checks can be done via by defining a GIMatchPredicate like so: > def hasOneUse : GIMatchPredicate<(ins reg:$A), bool, [{ > return MRI.hasOneUse(${A}); > }]>; > and then using it in the match section. Improving on hasOneUse() to support the cases where some/all uses...

...s. E.g., > should a pattern only be applied if there is only one user? Is it > valid if there are more that one users, if we cannot move something > into the destination block can we still apply the pattern is we move > the result in the source block, etc. > > > The existing hasOneUse() checks can be done via by defining a GIMatchPredicate like so: > def hasOneUse : GIMatchPredicate<(ins reg:$A), bool, [{ > return MRI.hasOneUse(${A}); > }]>; > and then using it in the match section. Improving on hasOneUse() to support the cases where some/all uses ar...

> On Nov 13, 2018, at 08:01, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > > Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > >> That's an interesting idea. Certainly tablegenerating InstCombine >> ought to be possible and sharing code sounds like it ought to be >> doable. MIR and IR are pretty similar especially after IRTranslator

...s. E.g., > should a pattern only be applied if there is only one user? Is it > valid if there are more that one users, if we cannot move something > into the destination block can we still apply the pattern is we move > the result in the source block, etc. > > > The existing hasOneUse() checks can be done via by defining a > GIMatchPredicate like so: > def hasOneUse : GIMatchPredicate<(ins reg:$A), bool, [{ > return MRI.hasOneUse(${A}); > }]>; > and then using it in the match section. Improving on hasOneUse() to > support the cases where some/all...