search for: outweigh

...as lots of cutoffs (because the underlying algorithm is asymptotically expensive). - It has bugs (the way it tracks anti-dependencies from calls, for example, is broken: PR20600). In short, while BBVectorize was useful when it was added, it is unclear to me whether or not its continuing presence outweighs the ongoing maintenance costs and resulting user confusion (I still occasionally see users turning it on when they likely would be happier with the SLP vectorizer instead). So, if you're using it and would like it to stay, please speak up! Also, BBVectorize has an API. Is anyone using it? Th...

...;yum update" does not substitute a new yum.conf file that points only to mirror.caosity.org? c) allow public mirrors to access mirror.caosity.org directly, but block direct access by everyone else? On the other hand, do the benefits of allowing direct access to mirror.caosity.org by everyone outweigh the costs of occasionally big ISP bills? Feel free to express your views, Greg is listening. Rick

...check? Depending on the optimization we may not need to check each access against each other access, which being quadratic can be a significant difference. 2. Each pass performs its own versioning Under this approach, each pass would make the calculation locally whether the benefit of versioning outweighs the overhead of the checks. The current Loop Vectorizer is a good example for this. It effectively assumes no may-alias and if the number of required checks are under a certain threshold it assumes that the vectorization gain will outweigh the cost of the checks. Making decision locally is not...

...has to be weighed against the possibility of *not* getting updates, and getting hacked as a result -- usually the latter being worse. After all, if users are exhorted to log in to their machines and check for updates and apply them, that implies that the risk of getting hosed by a buggy update is outweighed by the risk of getting hacked by not applying updates. If that's true for updates that are applied manually, it ought to be true for updates that are downloaded and applied automatically, shouldn't it? Bennett

...who are tracking trunk in the interim. However, the changes would only be required for Pass*Manager* and related classes. Neither Pass, FunctionPass, or PassManagerBuilder would change. Any objections to this? While it clearly has cost and would not be my preferred approach, the benefits seem to outweigh the costs here. -Chandler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150128/8c3442d4/attachment.html>

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:16 AM Michael Platings via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Regarding a plan for conversion, I'm keen to avoid perfect being the enemy > of better. It seems a bit early to discuss conversion given there’s not consensus on a style. For example: If we imagine that over time it evolves such that 50% of the variables have > been renamed

...ompile with -O3 though. It is a toolchain default and not an implication of -Os or -Oz. My vote is not imply ARM/Thumb state changes with optimization options. We've already got two ways to do it --target=thumb-none-eabi, --target=arm-none-eabi and -mthumb/-marm I think the potential confusion outweighs the potential benefit. I'm just one voice though. Peter ________________________________ > From: Sjoerd Meijer > Sent: 15 November 2018 14:15:26 > To: Peter Smith; Bruce Hoult > Cc: llvm-dev; nd > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [RFC][ARM] -Oz implies -mthumb > > > > Yes, e...

...nd bugfixing. I'd rather backport everything. I'm cc:ing Arnaud, (Arjen, feel free to weigh in as well) but when a driver is developed based on experimentation rather than a well-defined protocol specification, I personally think that the advantages of "releasing early and often" outweigh the disadvantages of keeping the changes only in the trunk. It looks like the megatec_usb driver in 2.2.0 and 2.2.1 does not support the Phoenixtec protocol, but that shouldn't affect current users of megatec_usb. Also, given that the reconnection feature has been somewhat tested in other driv...

...nd bugfixing. I'd rather backport everything. I'm cc:ing Arnaud, (Arjen, feel free to weigh in as well) but when a driver is developed based on experimentation rather than a well-defined protocol specification, I personally think that the advantages of "releasing early and often" outweigh the disadvantages of keeping the changes only in the trunk. It looks like the megatec_usb driver in 2.2.0 and 2.2.1 does not support the Phoenixtec protocol, but that shouldn't affect current users of megatec_usb. Also, given that the reconnection feature has been somewhat tested in other driv...

Right now you can use either Pens/Balance/Pound to put in front of some Mongrels and it works really good (easy to setup too!). I got to thinking, would it be possible to mimic what Pens/Balance/Pound does in pure Ruby (yeah, I know the answer is yes)? I guess I''m looking for a starting point. Does one simply write an HTTP listener that then redirects the calls to Mongrel? Is

...move to another > system. I don't recall the exact reasons for not switching, but part of > it was that CVS is the "standard" revision control system out there > (i.e. everyone already has it on their system). I also recall that, at > the time, the cost of switching outweighed the benefits we thought we'd > gain. > > Right now, the moving of files doesn't happen often enough to warrant a > change in software (IMHO). I just think that we as a group need to > exercise more care when moving files so that we minimize the problems > that aris...

...oing to want to know the types each time I call an entry. Seemed an obvious way would be to use an integer and bitwise ops, so that each bit in the integer represrented a type which could be on or off. Does anyone have any comments re the wisdom or otherwise of doing this? Would the benefits be outweighed by the calculation overhead? Any better way that I haven''t thought of? Cheers in advance Chris T (p.s. I''m using MySQL at the moment) -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

...e *. As shown by the numbers above. > I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost IM[biased]O. Sean > If folks insist on following through with this anyway, I'm firmly in the > camp the name should be "drm" and nothing else. > > > BR, > Jani. > > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

...e *. As shown by the numbers above. > I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost IM[biased]O. Sean > If folks insist on following through with this anyway, I'm firmly in the > camp the name should be "drm" and nothing else. > > > BR, > Jani. > > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

...t; so we are only regressing the benchmark 24% rather than 39% there. > Jack > This still all begs the question of what exact metrics exist for the Q/A of llvm releases? IMHO, the bad PR from shoving out compiler releases with severe performance regressions in the generated code far outweighs a brief delay to triage these issues as much as possible. Jack > >> Do you seriously want to ship with a 39% performance regression in a >> major benchmark? >> Jack >> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at lin...

...e, we decided not to move to another system. I don't recall the exact reasons for not switching, but part of it was that CVS is the "standard" revision control system out there (i.e. everyone already has it on their system). I also recall that, at the time, the cost of switching outweighed the benefits we thought we'd gain. Right now, the moving of files doesn't happen often enough to warrant a change in software (IMHO). I just think that we as a group need to exercise more care when moving files so that we minimize the problems that arise. -- John T. > > Ch...

...e other such scheme. Introducing new types is hard work and creates a maintenance burden for everyone, since they will need to be properly supported by all parts of the compiler forever more. It is therefore important to give a cogent explanation of why this is the best approach, why the benefits outweigh the costs, and so forth. Ciao, Duncan.

...it be better to remove the inline keyword from the declaration of FLAC__bitwriter_write_raw_uint32 (and by extension, remove inline from FLAC__bitwriter_write_zeroes and add it to FLAC__bitwriter_write_unary_unsigned)? I suspect that the cache misses caused by code bloat from so much inlining would outweigh the comparable function call overhead, but performance testing would be necessary to confirm this. Best, Evan

On Wednesday 20 September 8:56 pm, Alex Jones wrote: > I think the consequences outweigh the benefits. Having metadata at the > beginning of the file serves as metadata and gives you important > information such as expected stream length. Pushing this to the back for > the sake of making tag updates quicker seems a bit of a bad move to me - > how often do you re-tag your fi...

...record as much of this information as possible in the receiving side's file system, and record the rest in, I suppose, special extra files on the receiving end. So, what would the format of these files be? For instance, it seems that the speed gains from fixed record lengths wouldn't outweigh the loss of flexibility. Would XML be overkill? Thanks for any insight. -- Ben Escoto -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync...