search for: passingly

Hi Neil / Thorsten, The full test result is attached. Thanks and Regards, Anil ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- root at genericarmv8:~/anilss/AArch64/mksh_44-1/mksh# ./mksh test.sh -p $PWD/mksh Testing mksh for conformance: # $MirOS: src/bin/mksh/check.t,v 1.599 2013/02/24 14:22:41 tg Exp $

mainly question for the intel folks, any chance to rerun the ltp testsuites to see how we are doing these days with all the changes ? thanks :) Wim

On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:44:27 +0000 (UTC) Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de> wrote: > Anil Singhar dixit: > > >Manual testing as provided within the package has been done with all > >tests passing. This includes the units tests available under > >usr/klibc/tests, usr/utils, usr/dash and usr/gzip. For dash and > >gzip, only sanity testing has been done. > >

flight 2041 xen-unstable real http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/2041/ Regressions :-( tests which did not succeed: test-amd64-amd64-pair 12 guest-migrate/src_host/dst_host fail never pass test-amd64-amd64-pv 8 guest-saverestore fail like 2017 test-amd64-amd64-win 6 guest-saverestore fail REGR. vs. 2017 test-amd64-amd64-xl

On 6/20/16 3:46 PM, Yuxi Chen wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for your reply. > But I still don't know how a transform pass updates a new analysis > pass after it modifies the IR. Can you explain it clearly? I am not > familiar with pass management and invocation. Passes can have methods that allow their internal state to be updated by other passes (the same way that their state

On 6/5/12 10:39 AM, Ralf Karrenberg wrote: > Hi John, > > On 6/5/12 4:31 PM, John Criswell wrote: >> On 4/12/12 3:32 AM, Ivan Llopard wrote: >>> Hi again, >>> >>> I come back to this issue with an example. It's a pass which does >>> nothing but throw the 'Unable to schedule' error. >>> >>> namespace { >>>

The Intel C++ compiler has long had an internal facility to help our development teams track down the source of optimization related bugs by allowing a sort of binary search in which optimization passes and even individual optimizations are selectively disabled in response to front end command line options. As we've been doing development work on LLVM our developers have found that we miss

I'd like to write a pass that does both: implements a code transformation *and *saves information that can be accessed by subsequent passes. If such a pass is not an Analysis pass and that therefore subsequent passes are not supposed to use getAnalysis() to extract the information from that pass... what is the right way to do this? Right now I am using getAnalysis to get the information from

Hi Andy, > On Mar 25, 2016, at 11:41 AM, Kaylor, Andrew via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The Intel C++ compiler has long had an internal facility to help our development teams track down the source of optimization related bugs by allowing a sort of binary search in which optimization passes and even individual optimizations are selectively disabled in response

Hi Mehdi, I started by trying to implement a single number approach, but it doesn't allow quite the approach I wanted in terms of isolating individual functions. Also, I think that there would be problems with that once parallel function optimization is enabled. I am open to revisiting that approach to see if the problems I had with it can be resolved. -Andy From: mehdi.amini at apple.com

We have tested the latest xen on VT platform with Intel 965/5000P chipset. Here is the test summary: Issues: ========================= 1). VBD could not work well Partial support is added in c/s 13198, but the loader still complains that symbol "irq_to_evtchn_port" is missing. 2). IA32E: IA32E vista can''t boot up normally, it gives a blue screen. Then the qemu window

Greetings folks! In working on a new optimization pass (splitting cold regions into separate functions based on branch probabilities) I've run into some limitations of the current pass manager infrastructure. After chatting about this with Nick, it seems that there are some pretty systematic weaknesses of the current design and implementation (but not with the fundamental concepts or

> On Mar 25, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Andy, > >> On Mar 25, 2016, at 11:41 AM, Kaylor, Andrew via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> The Intel C++ compiler has long had an internal facility to help our development teams track down the

> On Mar 25, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Mehdi, > > I started by trying to implement a single number approach, but it doesn’t allow quite the approach I wanted in terms of isolating individual functions. Do you have an example where it matters? I wonder if there are enough real-world use case that justify the complexity?

On 6/19/16 4:28 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: > >> On Jun 18, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Yuxi Chen via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> When I use llvm, I encounter a problem like "unable to schedule pass >> A required by C" >> I investigated deeper.

Let's say I have an analysis pass that's dependent on another analysis pass (getAnalysisUsage does the appropraite things). So Pass Y depends on Pass X. If some transformation pass depends on Pass Y and Pass Y has not been invalidated by another other pass BUT Pass X _has_ been invalidated by some other pass, what happens? I can imagine two likely paths in the current implementation

Looking through some of the remaining test failures under the new pass manager, I've narrowed down one of the failures in GWPAsan(!) to the fact that the new pass manager doesn't properly skip passes like the old pass manager. For example, when a function is marked optnone, or when using https://llvm.org/docs/OptBisect.html. Lots of passes (e.g. SROA) will do the following under the

Could somebody please explain exactly what an "analysis pass" is? I've spent some time trying to understand this and I just don't get it. Right now my understanding is the following: if a pass is an "analysis" pass, the "print" function is called when giving the "-analyze" switch to opt. Is there more to it than that? If I've got it wrong,

On Jul 25, 2008, at 12:58 PM, Marc de Kruijf wrote: > I'd like to write a pass that does both: implements a code > transformation and saves information that can be accessed by > subsequent passes. Ideally, we want to use two separate pass. However, it is quiet possible that your requirement is unique. Would it be possible to provide more info. on what your pass does ? >

> On Mar 25, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 25, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi Andy, >> >>> On Mar 25, 2016, at 11:41 AM, Kaylor, Andrew via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at