search for: pipeline

...wrote: >> On 11 Sep 2017, at 11.24, Nagy, Attila <bra at fsn.hu> wrote: >> I use dovecot with a broken IMAP server (which doesn't properly implement command pipelining amongst others) as an imapc backend. >> Dovecot issues the above command sequence (SELECT and UID FETCH pipelined), which doesn't work with this server. >> >> Therefore I'm requesting an imapc_features setting, IMAPC_FEATURE_NO_PIPELINING, which disables PIPELINING in dovecot imapc. Similarly to other workarounds, like IMAPC_FEATURE_FETCH_MSN_WORKAROUNDS, IMAPC_FEATURE_FETCH_FIX_BROKEN_MAI...

...tried it, and dovecot still >> does the above. > So what are you exactly doing? > > I use dovecot with a broken IMAP server (which doesn't properly implement command pipelining amongst others) as an imapc backend. Dovecot issues the above command sequence (SELECT and UID FETCH pipelined), which doesn't work with this server. Therefore I'm requesting an imapc_features setting, IMAPC_FEATURE_NO_PIPELINING, which disables PIPELINING in dovecot imapc. Similarly to other workarounds, like IMAPC_FEATURE_FETCH_MSN_WORKAROUNDS, IMAPC_FEATURE_FETCH_FIX_BROKEN_MAILS et al.

...tila <bra at fsn.hu> wrote: >>>> I use dovecot with a broken IMAP server (which doesn't properly >>>> implement command pipelining amongst others) as an imapc backend. >>>> Dovecot issues the above command sequence (SELECT and UID FETCH >>>> pipelined), which doesn't work with this server. >>>> >>>> Therefore I'm requesting an imapc_features setting, >>>> IMAPC_FEATURE_NO_PIPELINING, which disables PIPELINING in dovecot >>>> imapc. Similarly to other workarounds, like >>>> IMAP...

Is there a way to express a multiple pipeline itinerary using the current scheme (maybe some trick with setting NextCycles = 0)? Specifically, consider a case where a floating-point load simultaneously uses units from a floating-point pipeline and a load/store pipeline. Thanks in advance, Hal -- Hal Finkel Postdoctoral Appointee Leadership...

...ova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> Cc: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>; Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization pipeline Le mar. 10 avr. 2018 à 23:18, <katya.romanova at sony.com<mailto:katya.romanova at sony.com>> a écrit : Hi Mehdi, Awesome! It’s a very clear design. The only question left is which pipeline to choose for unified compile-phase optimization pipeline. - ThinLTO compile-phase pip...

...nova at sony.com> > *Cc:* David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>; Teresa Johnson < > tejohnson at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO > and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization pipeline > > > > > > Le mar. 10 avr. 2018 à 23:18, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > > Hi Mehdi, > > > > Awesome! It’s a very clear design. The only question left is which > pipeline to choose for unified compile-phase optimization pipeline. > > -...

See attached some quick slides (backup from the dev meeting talk) about the pass pipeline. -- Mehdi Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 12:18, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> a écrit : > > > Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 11:20, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> >>...

...with. Would appreciate feedback. Thanks. Issue It’s not obvious (to me) how to best do this, given that we cannot request an outer-scope analysis result from an inner-scope pass through analysis managers [1] and that we might unnecessarily running some analyses unless we conditionally build pass pipelines for PGO cases. It seems that for different types of passes to be able to get PSI and BFI, we’d need to ensure PSI is cached for a non-module pass, and PSI, BFI and the ModuleAnalysisManager proxy are cached for a loop pass in the pass pipelines. This may mean potentially needing to insert BFI/PSI...

...Thanks. > > Issue > > It’s not obvious (to me) how to best do this, given that we cannot request > an outer-scope analysis result from an inner-scope pass through analysis > managers [1] and that we might unnecessarily running some analyses unless > we conditionally build pass pipelines for PGO cases. > > Indeed, this is an intentional restriction in new pass manager, which is > more or less a reflection of a fundamental property of outer-inner IRUnit > relationship > and transformations/analyses run on those units. The main intent for > having those inner IRUni...

...ct _SwfdecGstAudio SwfdecGstAudio; +struct _SwfdecGstAudio { + SwfdecAudioDecoder decoder; + + GMutex * mutex; /* mutex that blocks everything below */ + GCond * cond; /* cond used to signal when stuff below changes */ + volatile int refcount; /* refcount (d'oh) */ + + GstElement * pipeline; /* pipeline that is playing or NULL when done */ + SwfdecBuffer * in; /* next input buffer or NULL */ + SwfdecBufferQueue * out; /* all the stored output buffers */ + GstCaps * srccaps; /* caps to set on buffers */ + gboolean eof; /* we've pushed EOF */ + gboolean done; /* TRU...

...n that >>> we cannot request an outer-scope analysis result from an >>> inner-scope pass through analysis managers [1] and that >>> we might unnecessarily running some analyses unless we >>> conditionally build pass pipelines for PGO cases. >> Indeed, this is an intentional restriction in new pass >> manager, which is more or less a reflection of a >> fundamental property of outer-inner IRUnit relationship >> and transformations/analyses run on tho...

...fsn.hu> wrote: >>>>> I use dovecot with a broken IMAP server (which doesn't properly >>>>> implement command pipelining amongst others) as an imapc backend. >>>>> Dovecot issues the above command sequence (SELECT and UID FETCH >>>>> pipelined), which doesn't work with this server. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore I'm requesting an imapc_features setting, >>>>> IMAPC_FEATURE_NO_PIPELINING, which disables PIPELINING in dovecot >>>>> imapc. Similarly to other workarounds, like >&...

...i Tuomi wrote: > On 11.09.2017 15:56, Nagy, Attila wrote: >> On 09/11/2017 12:12 PM, Aki Tuomi wrote: >>> Is there some reason you can't use normal proxy instead of imap backend? >>> That is,return proxy, host=imap_backend, port=1430? There seems to be no >>> pipeline setting currently for imapc in v2.2. >>> >> Yes, because it's a dumb IMAP server, which doesn't implement a lot of >> things, like SEARCH, FETCH BODYSTRUCTURE and similar. >> Dovecot is used as a smart proxy, which makes it possible to use it as >> a fully f...

...ssue >> >> It’s not obvious (to me) how to best do this, given that we cannot >> request an outer-scope analysis result from an inner-scope pass through >> analysis managers [1] and that we might unnecessarily running some analyses >> unless we conditionally build pass pipelines for PGO cases. >> >> Indeed, this is an intentional restriction in new pass manager, which is >> more or less a reflection of a fundamental property of outer-inner IRUnit >> relationship >> and transformations/analyses run on those units. The main intent for >>...

Le mar. 10 avr. 2018 à 23:18, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > Hi Mehdi, > > > > Awesome! It’s a very clear design. The only question left is which > pipeline to choose for unified compile-phase optimization pipeline. > > - ThinLTO compile-phase pipeline? It might very negatively affect > compile-time and the memory footprint for FullLTO link-phase. That was the > reason why so many optimization were moved from the link-phase to the &g...

On 09/08/2017 01:53 PM, Aki Tuomi wrote: > > On 08.09.2017 14:50, Nagy, Attila wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've a broken IMAP server, which doesn't support pipelining and fails >> on dovecot's attempt to do this ([C] is dovecot's imapc, [S] is the >> IMAP server): >> >> [C] 24 LOGIN "user" "pass" >> [S] 23 OK

Hi Mehdi, Awesome! It’s a very clear design. The only question left is which pipeline to choose for unified compile-phase optimization pipeline. - ThinLTO compile-phase pipeline? It might very negatively affect compile-time and the memory footprint for FullLTO link-phase. That was the reason why so many optimization were moved from the link-phase to the parallel compile-phas...

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > Since the compiler is always free to delete available_externally > functions, I think you could just add a pass to the -flto=thin pipeline > that deletes all of them (referenced or not) -- it's just a single loop > through all the functions deleting the bodies of those with the right > linkage. I imagine there are other pass pipelines that might want to do > something similar. I don't really like having GlobalDCE...

...11.24, Nagy, Attila <bra at fsn.hu> wrote: >>> I use dovecot with a broken IMAP server (which doesn't properly >>> implement command pipelining amongst others) as an imapc backend. >>> Dovecot issues the above command sequence (SELECT and UID FETCH >>> pipelined), which doesn't work with this server. >>> >>> Therefore I'm requesting an imapc_features setting, >>> IMAPC_FEATURE_NO_PIPELINING, which disables PIPELINING in dovecot >>> imapc. Similarly to other workarounds, like >>> IMAPC_FEATURE_FETCH_MSN_...

On 09/11/2017 12:12 PM, Aki Tuomi wrote: > Is there some reason you can't use normal proxy instead of imap backend? > That is,return proxy, host=imap_backend, port=1430? There seems to be no > pipeline setting currently for imapc in v2.2. > Yes, because it's a dumb IMAP server, which doesn't implement a lot of things, like SEARCH, FETCH BODYSTRUCTURE and similar. Dovecot is used as a smart proxy, which makes it possible to use it as a fully featured IMAP server.