search for: pipelined

...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_MAIL...

...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 >>>> IMAPC...

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 Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory

From: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:53 PM To: Romanova, 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

Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 11:20, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > > > > > *From:* Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:53 PM > *To:* Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> > *Cc:* David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>; Teresa Johnson < > tejohnson at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

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> >> *Sent:*

...ork for the old pass manager because we cannot conditionally depend on an analysis under it. [1] We cannot call AnalysisManager::getResult for an outer scope but only getCachedResult. Probably because of potential pipelining or concurrency issues. [2] For example, potentially breaking up multiple pipelined loop passes and insert RequireAnalysisPass<BlockFrequencyAnalysis> in front of each of them. [3] For example, -fprofile-instr-use and -fprofile-sample-use aren’t present in ThinLTO post link builds. [4] For example, we could check whether the module has the profile summary metadata annotated...

...ly. > I have hit this issue somewhat recently with dependency of loop passes on > BranchProbabilityInfo. > (some loop passes, like IRCE can use it for profitability analysis). > The only solution that appears to be reasonable there is to teach all the > loops passes that need to be pipelined > to preserve BPI (or any other module/function-level analyses) similar to > how they preserve DominatorTree and > other "LoopStandard" analyses. > Is this implemented - do the loop passes preserve BPI? In buildFunctionSimplificationPipeline (where LoopFullUnrollPass is adde...

libswfdec/swfdec_codec_audio.c | 8 - libswfdec/swfdec_codec_gst.c | 271 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 270 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) New commits: diff-tree 68a17dfade3397478342d4c88fa9b9e3dc13f329 (from 01bf0e400ee99da0e96707f606d41bb23d5a8b48) Author: Benjamin Otte <otte@gnome.org> Date: Sun Apr 8 12:32:39 2007 +0200 make GStreamer do MP3

...p passes on BranchProbabilityInfo. >> (some loop passes, like IRCE can use it for profitability >> analysis). >> >> The only solution that appears to be reasonable there is >> to teach all the loops passes that need to be pipelined >> to preserve BPI (or any other module/function-level >> analyses) similar to how they preserve DominatorTree and >> other "LoopStandard" analyses. >> >> >> Is this implemented - do the loop passes preserve B...

...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 >&g...

On 09/11/2017 03:01 PM, Aki 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,

...this issue somewhat recently with dependency of loop passes on >> BranchProbabilityInfo. >> (some loop passes, like IRCE can use it for profitability analysis). >> > The only solution that appears to be reasonable there is to teach all the >> loops passes that need to be pipelined >> to preserve BPI (or any other module/function-level analyses) similar to >> how they preserve DominatorTree and >> other "LoopStandard" analyses. >> > > Is this implemented - do the loop passes preserve BPI? > > Nope, not implemented right now. >...

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.

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-phase for FullLTO

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

...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_W...

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