search for: parameteriz

Thanks Chris. I'll follow any ongoing discussion about this. Unless I'm missing something, customizable widths for integer types is necessary to achieve source-level compatibility with existing cross-compilers. It would be great to see the fronend being parameterized by integer widths at runtime. There would be no noticable loss of efficiency and this would avoid the obnoxious and error-prone situation of keeping many C frontends sitting around. FWIW CIL just lately became parameterizable at runtime with machine-specific information and it's really...

Got a quick question regarding the latest and greatest: module ActionController module Routing SEPARATORS = %w( / ; . , ? ) Why is period (.) one of the separators? As it stands, the new routing code doesn''t recognize ''file.ext'' as the last component of a URL, which is sometimes defaulted to nil. See the generated code below. I don''t know everything

...; Thanks Chris. I'll follow any ongoing discussion about this. > Unless I'm > missing something, customizable widths for integer types is > necessary to > achieve source-level compatibility with existing cross-compilers. > > It would be great to see the fronend being parameterized by integer > widths > at runtime. There would be no noticable loss of efficiency and this > would > avoid the obnoxious and error-prone situation of keeping many C > frontends > sitting around. > > FWIW CIL just lately became parameterizable at runtime with > mac...

...with this problem for the last couple of hours and am nowhere near solving the problem. I am trying to run a tftp server in a chroot jail. Now perhaps I am being paranoid, but I would like to have it launched from within its own jail even if it supposedly does a chroot itself and runs with a parameterizable user. I downloaded the atftp-server package and tried to set up my own tftpd jail. I copied over the linked libs to the proper place, the /etc/passwd, /etc/groups, /etc/hosts, /etc/nsswitch.conf, /etc/resolv, /etc/services files. I even created the dev/null device and set up syslog to read...

Although the process of porting the LLVM backend to a new architecture looks pretty straightforward (and is very well documented) there's a frontend issue that I'm not clear on: How do we to tell the frontend about implementation-defined constants like integer width? In other words, when llvm-gcc does a promote-to-integer operation, this acts differently if the target architecture

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, John Regehr wrote: > Although the process of porting the LLVM backend to a new architecture > looks pretty straightforward (and is very well documented) there's a > frontend issue that I'm not clear on: > > How do we to tell the frontend about implementation-defined constants > like integer width? In other words, when llvm-gcc does a >

Thanks for all the replies! I wanted to closely resemble what the CACAO VM[1] backend did with success for a long time: for every CACAO IR instruction, there is a sequence of x86 instructions that get written directly to the executable memory. In CACAO, registers are used while available, then everything is spilled. Relocations are resolved and patched in a second go. It seems this is similar to

...g a very small stack machine primarily for use inside FPGAs and ASICs. This serves roughly the same niche as the above processors, however from my perpsective, my design has a number of advantages. For example, mine has a much smaller minimal configuration, has higher code density, is much more parameterizable, fully supports indirect branches, is FPGA-architecture independent, etc. The main goal, however, is to not just have a shiny new architecture, but to have an entire optimized supporting toolchain. I am hoping to build on LLVM as infrastructure. I don't think I need to sell you all on t...

Hi Brandon, > Did you have issues with the Verifier complaining about function-local > metadata after moving blocks? Did you find a good solution for this? > It looks like you are moving blocks or instructions with attached metadata to another function. Some metadata is function-specific, so the verifier complains because the instruction/BB and the metadata don't belong to the

...g a very small stack machine primarily for use inside FPGAs and ASICs. This serves roughly the same niche as the above processors, however from my perpsective, my design has a number of advantages. For example, mine has a much smaller minimal configuration, has higher code density, is much more parameterizable, fully supports indirect branches, is FPGA-architecture independent, etc. The main goal, however, is to not just have a shiny new architecture, but to have an entire optimized supporting toolchain. I am hoping to build on LLVM as infrastructure. I don't think I need to sell you all on t...

Hi Pablo, Your tool sounds really cool. It goes well beyond what I’m trying to do, which is really just extracting blocks of code, serializing and sending the inputs over to another core, running the code over there, and then sending the outputs back to the original caller (like an automatic RPC). So it sounds like most of the things your tool can do would be overkill for my use case. What I’ve

Hey all! We''ve been using Ferret to great success these past six months. But recently we''ved tried adding many new ContentItems (only thing being index by Ferret at the moment), and things came crashing to a halt. ferret gem: 0.10.9 acts_as_ferret plugin (not sure which version) How we''re using the plugin: class ContentItem < ActiveRecord::Base acts_as_ferret

...y complexity in this case. It might be more worth it if there's a similar G_SEXT variant too. The reason for the "I'll come back to this bit" in the apply section is because you've raised an issue I'd forgotten to deal with. The opcodes in the apply section should also be parameterizable. My first thought on that is that there should be a macro-equivalent for apply such as: def : GIExpansion< (defs def:$R, use:$S, imm:$IDX), (apply (select imm:$IDX, (0 [{MIR %R = FOO %S }]), (1 [{MIR %R = BAR %S }]), (2 [{MIR %0 = BAZ %S...

...xity in this case. It might be more worth it if there's a similar G_SEXT variant too. >> The reason for the "I'll come back to this bit" in the apply section is because you've raised an issue I'd forgotten to deal with. The opcodes in the apply section should also be parameterizable. My first thought on that is that there should be a macro-equivalent for apply such as: >> def : GIExpansion< >> (defs def:$R, use:$S, imm:$IDX), >> (apply (select imm:$IDX, >> (0 [{MIR %R = FOO %S }]), >> (1 [{MIR %R = BAR %...

...hat being at the machine level, before or >> after RA, will give the most accurate heuristics but we feel there's an >> advantage to being at the IR level. At the IR level we can do so many more >> things that are either too difficult/complex for the machine level(e.g >> parameterization/outputs/etc). Not only can we do these things but they are >> available on all targets immediately, without the need for target hooks. >> The caution on the use of heuristics is understandable, but there comes a >> point when trade offs need to be made. We made the trade off...

I attempted the following: resources { service: purge => true, noop => true } service { sshd: ensure => running; iptables ensure => running; } And got the following message: notice: Starting configuration run err: Found a bug: uninitialized constant Parse notice: Finished configuration run in 0.47 seconds When I remove the ''resources'' line, everything works

Hi All, I've been working on the GlobalISel combiner recently and I'd like to share the plan for how Combine Rules will be defined in GlobalISel and solicit feedback on it. This email ended up rather long so: TL;DR: We're planning to define GlobalISel Combine Rules using MIR syntax with a few bits glued on to interface with the algorithm and escape into C++ when we need to.

...dataflow meet points to give an overly conservative result, even > > though our standard intraprocedural analyses would have happily dug through > > the left side of the diamond if the code had not been outlined. > > > > Also, River's patch (the one in this thread) does parameterized outlining. > > For example, two sequences containing stores can be outlined even if the > > corresponding stores have different pointers. The pointer to be loaded from > > is passed as a parameter to the outlined function. In that sense, the > > outlined function's beh...

...verly conservative result, >> even >> > though our standard intraprocedural analyses would have happily dug >> through >> > the left side of the diamond if the code had not been outlined. >> > >> > Also, River's patch (the one in this thread) does parameterized >> outlining. >> > For example, two sequences containing stores can be outlined even if the >> > corresponding stores have different pointers. The pointer to be loaded >> from >> > is passed as a parameter to the outlined function. In that sense, the >&gt...