search for: pipelines

On 09/11/2017 10:42 AM, Sami Ketola 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. >>

On 09/11/2017 09:17 AM, Aki Tuomi wrote: > > On 08.09.2017 15:29, Nagy, Attila wrote: >> 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

On 09/11/2017 11:14 AM, Aki Tuomi wrote: > > On 11.09.2017 11:59, Nagy, Attila wrote: >> On 09/11/2017 10:42 AM, Sami Ketola 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.

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

...ltiple variants of the pipeline two years ago. There were some regressions when adoption the ThinLTO pipeline in FullLTO (and some improvements), but when investigated we didn't find any real regressions that couldn't be solved by fixing the optimizer. When referring to ThinLTO and FullLTO pipelines here do you mean compile-phase pipeline, link-phase pipeline or full pipeline (i.e., compile-phase + link-phase)? The terminology is slightly confusing here. I.e. these are cases where FullLTO gets it right "by luck" and not by principle, and fixing such cases helps the non-LTO O3 (for e...

...o years ago. There were > some regressions when adoption the ThinLTO pipeline in FullLTO (and some > improvements), but when investigated we didn't find any real regressions > that couldn't be solved by fixing the optimizer. > > > > When referring to ThinLTO and FullLTO pipelines here do you mean > compile-phase pipeline, link-phase pipeline or full pipeline (i.e., > compile-phase + link-phase)? The terminology is slightly confusing here. > Here I meant everything: trying to use the exact same pipeline in both phases. > > > I.e. these are cases where...

...were some regressions when adoption the ThinLTO pipeline in FullLTO (and >> some improvements), but when investigated we didn't find any real >> regressions that couldn't be solved by fixing the optimizer. >> >> >> >> When referring to ThinLTO and FullLTO pipelines here do you mean >> compile-phase pipeline, link-phase pipeline or full pipeline (i.e., >> compile-phase + link-phase)? The terminology is slightly confusing here. >> > > > Here I meant everything: trying to use the exact same pipeline in both > phases. > > >...

...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 IRUnit...

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

...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 thos...

On 11.09.2017 13:09, Nagy, Attila wrote: > On 09/11/2017 11:14 AM, Aki Tuomi wrote: >> >> On 11.09.2017 11:59, Nagy, Attila wrote: >>> On 09/11/2017 10:42 AM, Sami Ketola 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 >>>>>

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,

...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 >> h...

...format – the linker will call an LTO API to convert these files > to the Thin LTO bitcode format (by regenerating the module summary section > dynamically for the Full LTO bitcode files). > > I think the most reasonable idea for the unification of the Thin and Full > LTO compilation pipelines is to use Full LTO as the “unified” BC format. If > the user requests FullLTO – no additional work is needed, the linker will > perform FullLTO as usual. If the user request ThinLTO, the linker will call > an API to regenerate the module summary section for all the files in the > FullLT...

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

...files are in the Full BC format – the linker will call an LTO API to convert these files to the Thin LTO bitcode format (by regenerating the module summary section dynamically for the Full LTO bitcode files). I think the most reasonable idea for the unification of the Thin and Full LTO compilation pipelines is to use Full LTO as the “unified” BC format. If the user requests FullLTO – no additional work is needed, the linker will perform FullLTO as usual. If the user request ThinLTO, the linker will call an API to regenerate the module summary section for all the files in the FullLTO format and perform...

...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 delete them > (even behind a flag) because they aren't actually dead, and I think a > separate pass makes it easier to test and all that. (I haven't actually > worked much with pass pipelines,...

On 11.09.2017 11:59, Nagy, Attila wrote: > On 09/11/2017 10:42 AM, Sami Ketola 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

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