Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1629 matches for "owener".
Did you mean:
opener
2014 Nov 17
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm][SelectionDAG] trivial patch: fix misprint in SelectionDAGLegalize::ExpandInsertToVectorThroughStack
Alright, go ahead with it.
—Owen
> On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:58 AM, Daniil Troshkov <troshkovdanil at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I have not found test case. (It is because we have no target using "ExpandInsertToVectorThroughStack").
> But I tested it for target currently not included in llvm trunk.
>
> This fix correct and trivial, so I'm offering
2013 Sep 18
2
[LLVMdev] forcing two instructions to be together
I used the A9 schedule as an example:
http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Target/ARM/ARMScheduleA9.td
The documentation could use more clarity, but this is how I was able to do it to always get two specific instructions to be scheduled together.
________________________________________
From: reed kotler [rkotler at mips.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:54 PM
To: Micah Villmow
2020 May 07
6
[Bug 3161] New: ssh -J <public IPv6> <LL IPv6%scopeID> doesn't work as expected
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3161
Bug ID: 3161
Summary: ssh -J <public IPv6> <LL IPv6%scopeID> doesn't work as
expected
Product: Portable OpenSSH
Version: 8.2p1
Hardware: 68k
OS: Mac OS X
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P5
2009 Jun 30
6
[LLVMdev] MAJOR API CHANGE: LLVMContext
Notice of a major upcoming API change: The static methods for
constructing types and constants will be going away in the future.
Instead, the global uniquing tables that lurk behind these APIs will
be privatized within LLVMContext instances.
What this means for you: Your client application will need to create
an LLVMContext in main(), and pass it into a few APIs (the constructor
for
2013 Sep 17
2
[LLVMdev] forcing two instructions to be together
Reed,
Couldn't you also use instruction scheduling classes and specify that the second instruction has a bypass from the first instruction? The scheduler should always schedule them together in that case.
Micah
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On
> Behalf Of reed kotler
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013
2007 Feb 27
3
Icecast source encoder that can handle http streams?
I need to set up an icecast server which will stream out local MP3s
sometimes and relay another internet radio station at other times. In
order to do this, it seems like the icecast relay support won't help
me - there's no way to turn that on and off without changing the
icecast config and restarting the server. The only external icecast
source app that seems to handle http
2016 May 19
7
Transferring SelectionDAG code ownership
As I’m sure many of you have noticed, I no longer have the time to be a proper code owner for SelectionDAG. In the interest of the project and to keep development running smoothly, I am resigning my code ownership. Justin Bogner has graciously volunteered to take it up. He has a strong history of LLVM contributions, a demonstrated commitment to good community development practices, and has
2013 Sep 18
0
[LLVMdev] forcing two instructions to be together
That doesn't actually give you a guarantee that they won't be split up. Phases other than the scheduler may insert instructions in the middle of block (constant island pass, for example). Pseudo-instructions are the canonical answer to that problem.
--Owen
On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Micah Villmow <micah.villmow at smachines.com> wrote:
> I used the A9 schedule as an
2013 Sep 17
2
[LLVMdev] forcing two instructions to be together
+the list again
On Sep 17, 2013, at 3:48 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:
> On 09/17/2013 03:46 PM, Owen Anderson wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 2013, at 3:08 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any way, except for using bundles, to force two instructions to be sequentially executed?
>> What level of codegen are you working at?
2009 May 17
3
[LLVMdev] RFC: Atomics.h
Surprisingly enough, libatomic_ops doesn't define just a hardware
memory fence call as far as I can tell.
--Owen
On May 16, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Zoltan Varga wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You might want to use this:
>
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/atomic_ops/
>
> Zoltan
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at
2008 Nov 16
2
[LLVMdev] Move instruction
Hi owen,
Can you please elaborate as to what should I do? Find all the instruction which have r2 in it and replace all of them with r1 and then remove the load instruction?
Thanks
Abhinav
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen Anderson" <resistor at mac.com>
To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:22:32 PM
2014 Nov 12
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm][SelectionDAG] trivial patch: fix misprint in SelectionDAGLegalize::ExpandInsertToVectorThroughStack
I detected this bug using test case from platform which is not currently
supported on llvm targets. (Our team is porting llvm on new target).
Creating the test case will take some extra time. I'll try to do it ASAP.
Have you any ideas about the test case? (targets using
ExpandInsertToVectorThroughStack, etc...)
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote:
2009 May 16
6
[LLVMdev] RFC: Atomics.h
Some of you may have noticed that I addedd include/llvm/System/
Atomics.h to the repository briefly, which will be used for adding
support for threading in LLVM.
I have tried to provided appropriate implementations of the atomic ops
(currently memory fence and CAS) for platforms we care about, but my
knowledge of these, and my ability to test them, is limited. So,
please, if you run on
2009 May 17
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: Atomics.h
What would you do with a just-hardware memory fence? If the compiler's
free to move operations over the hardware fence, that seems to defeat
the purpose.
C++0X provides a compiler-only fence, and a hardware+compiler fence,
but no hardware-only fence, I believe for this reason. See
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2857.pdf>,
section 29.8.
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at
2023 Nov 12
1
[REGRESSION]: acpi/nouveau: Hardware unavailable upon resume or suspend fails
Hi,
On 11/10/23 17:58, Owen T. Heisler wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> On 11/10/23 06:52, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 2:19?PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/10/23 07:09, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 5:55?AM Owen T. Heisler <writer at owenh.net> wrote:
>>>>> #regzbot
2013 Sep 18
0
[LLVMdev] forcing two instructions to be together
On 09/17/2013 04:51 PM, Micah Villmow wrote:
> Reed,
> Couldn't you also use instruction scheduling classes and specify that the second instruction has a bypass from the first instruction? The scheduler should always schedule them together in that case.
>
> Micah
>
I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
Can you point me to an example of that?
TIA.
Reed
>>
2010 Oct 06
3
[LLVMdev] Hello pass?
Hey,
Does anyone actually care about the "hello, world" pass in lib/Transforms/Hello? Is there any particular reason why it couldn't be under examples or projects, or just removed altogether?
--Owen
2009 Jul 01
0
[LLVMdev] MAJOR API CHANGE: LLVMContext
To ease this transition, I have added a getGlobalContext() API. If
you're only ever planning to use LLVM on a single thread, it will be
completely safe to simply pass this value to every API that takes an
LLVMContext.
--Owen
On Jun 30, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Owen Anderson wrote:
> Notice of a major upcoming API change: The static methods for
> constructing types and constants will
2008 May 14
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM as a DLL
Owen:
Can you clarify what kinds of dynamic linker issues you are seeing? I
speculate that cross-library dependency resolution is high on the list,
but what else?
shap
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 21:44 -0500, Owen Anderson wrote:
> On May 13, 2008, at 9:22 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > Owen:
> >
> > This is not correct. As the API stabilizes, it will become
> >
2013 Sep 17
0
[LLVMdev] forcing two instructions to be together
On 09/17/2013 03:52 PM, Owen Anderson wrote:
> +the list again
> On Sep 17, 2013, at 3:48 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09/17/2013 03:46 PM, Owen Anderson wrote:
>>> On Sep 17, 2013, at 3:08 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there any way, except for using bundles, to force two instructions to be