search for: outweighed

Hi Everyone, I propose that we remove BBVectorize from trunk. Here's why: - It never made it from "interesting experiment" to "production quality" (it is not part of any in-tree optimization pipeline). - We now have an SLP vectorizer that we do use in production, had have for some time. - BBVectorize otherwise needs refactoring, and the implementation has lots of

Hey, Greg suggested that I take a straw poll. Should cAos take steps to prevent getting stuck with a big ISP bill in the future? For example, should cAos: a) for new installs, have the yum.conf point to public mirrors, rather than to mirror.caosity.org? b) make sure that "yum update" does not substitute a new yum.conf file that points only to mirror.caosity.org? c) allow public

There is a work taking place by multiple people in this area and more is expected to happen and I’d like to make sure we’re working toward a common end goal. I tried to collect the use-cases for run-time memory checks and the specific memchecks required for each: 1. Loop Vectorizer: each memory access is checked against all other memory accesses in the loop (except read vs read) 2. Loop

...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

Greetings folks. I had really wanted out-of-tree folks to be able to make only a single change to their code due to the new pass manager; essentially, by the time they had to touch the code at all I wanted them to be able to port completely to the new pass manager. However, Richard has raised the issue that this is nearly impossible to make work with C++ modules, and we've lost the modules

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

On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 14:18, Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> wrote: > > Ahhh, typo in my previous mail: > > > > when I noticed that -Os gives me Thumb on Cortex-A{8,9,17} > > > I wanted to say: > > > when I noticed that "GCC -Os" gives me Thumb on Cortex-A{8,9,17} > > Yes. Just to clarify my response. That particular linaro

[moving this thread to nut-upsdev] On Jan 12, 2008 5:54 PM, Alexander I. Gordeev <lasaine at lvk.cs.msu.su> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:30:37 +0300, Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com> > wrote: > > when you figure this out, can we make sure that we know which > > changesets would need to be back-ported to branches/Testing (since > > that is where we would

[moving this thread to nut-upsdev] On Jan 12, 2008 5:54 PM, Alexander I. Gordeev <lasaine at lvk.cs.msu.su> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:30:37 +0300, Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com> > wrote: > > when you figure this out, can we make sure that we know which > > changesets would need to be back-ported to branches/Testing (since > > that is where we would

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 arise....

...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/.

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:52?AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Jul 2023, Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > while I debugged an issue in the imx-lcdc driver I was constantly > > irritated about struct drm_device pointer variables being named "dev" > > because with

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:52?AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Jul 2023, Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > while I debugged an issue in the imx-lcdc driver I was constantly > > irritated about struct drm_device pointer variables being named "dev" > > because with

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Jack Howarth > <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: >> I finally got around to testing this on a Bloomfield processor (Early >> 2009 MacPro 2x2.66 GHz dual-quad core) and the regressions from >>

...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. > > Chri...

Hi Jonas, > I am investigating the possibilities of incorporating fixed point support into > the LLVM I/R. I think you should write a rationale explaining why you want to introduce new types etc rather than using the existing integer types, with intrinsic functions for the operations, or some other such scheme. Introducing new types is hard work and creates a maintenance burden for

Building with MinGW-w64 GCC 5.3.0 via Makefile.lite, I get the following warnings: bitwriter.c: In function 'FLAC__bitwriter_write_utf8_uint64': bitwriter.c:324:19: warning: inlining failed in call to 'FLAC__bitwriter_write_raw_uint32.constprop': --param large-function-growth limit reached [-Winline] inline FLAC__bool FLAC__bitwriter_write_raw_uint32(FLAC__BitWriter *bw,

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 files?

Hi, I vaguely remember some talk on this list of a virtual file system of some sort for rsync. The goal was to handle cases where the file system on the original side carried information (permissions, ownership, special file types?) which couldn't be recorded directly on the receiving side. I think the proposal was to record as much of this information as possible in the receiving