search for: outweighs

...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? Tha...

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

...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 i...

Ever since someone told me that one of my servers might have been hacked (not the most recent instance) because I wasn't applying updates as soon as they became available, I've been logging in and running "yum update" religiously once a week until I found out how to set the yum-updatesd service to do the equivalent automatically (once per hour, I think). Since then, I've

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

...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, ex...

[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

John Criswell wrote: > Chris Morgan wrote: > >> Any reason not to upgrade to subversion? It does a much better job >> with handling moved or renamed files although svn doesn't actually >> store a 'move' or a 'rename' as a single versioned operation. > > > We discussed moving to another revision control system about a year ago, > if I

Here''s the scenario. I have a main tree-like table (actually it''s more of a hierarchy), where the entries (or at least some of them) can be categorised as one or more of a fixed number of types (prob about 6 poss types). So an entry could be a Type A and a Type D; a Type C, D, E; just a Type F; etc. Having a join table would seem like it might get rather expensive since

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

...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 lina...

Chris Morgan wrote: > Any reason not to upgrade to subversion? It does a much better job > with handling moved or renamed files although svn doesn't actually > store a 'move' or a 'rename' as a single versioned operation. We discussed moving to another revision control system about a year ago, if I recall correctly. At that time, we decided not to move to another

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