search for: pople

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 256 matches for "pople".

Did you mean: people
2007 Apr 18
1
[PATCH] (with benchmarks) binary patching of paravirt_ops call sites
Hi all, Sorry for the delay. This implements binary patching of call sites for interrupt-related paravirt ops, since no-doubt Andi wasn't the only one to believe this approach is slow. The benchmarks were done on a UP 3GHz Pentium 4 with 512MB of RAM. 2.6.17-rc4 vs 2.6.17-rc4 with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y vs 2.6.17-rc4 CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y with patch. Summary: with binary patching, the difference
2007 Apr 18
1
[PATCH] (with benchmarks) binary patching of paravirt_ops call sites
Hi all, Sorry for the delay. This implements binary patching of call sites for interrupt-related paravirt ops, since no-doubt Andi wasn't the only one to believe this approach is slow. The benchmarks were done on a UP 3GHz Pentium 4 with 512MB of RAM. 2.6.17-rc4 vs 2.6.17-rc4 with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y vs 2.6.17-rc4 CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y with patch. Summary: with binary patching, the difference
2009 Aug 18
0
[LLVMdev] Build issues on Solaris
Hello, Nathan > or if it should be a configure test, which might be safer. Are there > any x86 platforms (other than apple) that don't need PLT-indirect calls? Yes, mingw. However just tweaking the define is not enough - we're not loading address of GOT into ebx before the call (on 32 bit ABIs) thus the call will be to nowhere. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of
2007 Apr 18
3
[PATCH 1/2] paravirt.h header
OK, this is the revised paravirt.h (Andi has seen this before), then the second is the binary patching stuff. More things get added to the paravirt struct in future patches, but this basic stuff hasn't changed for some time. ==== This patch does the dumbest possible replacement of paravirtualized instructions: calls through a "paravirt_ops" structure. Currently these are function
2009 Aug 25
2
[LLVMdev] Build issues on Solaris
On 19/08/2009, at 4:00 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, Nathan > >> or if it should be a configure test, which might be safer. Are there >> any x86 platforms (other than apple) that don't need PLT-indirect >> calls? > Yes, mingw. However just tweaking the define is not enough - we're not Ok, so configure might be the way to go then, maybe something
2016 Jun 29
0
[GSoC 2016] Implementation of the packing transformation
On 06/28/2016 10:53 AM, Roman Gareev wrote: > 2016-06-27 15:52 GMT+05:00 4lbert C0hen <4lbert.h.c0hen at gmail.com>: >> Dear Roman and all, >> >> Such features would be extremely useful to implement array expansion (scalar >> and array renaming, privatization with new subscript expressions of higher >> dimension) and storage mapping optimization (generalizing
2012 Mar 20
0
[LLVMdev] Runtime linker issue wtih X11R6 on i386 with -O3 optimization
I was told that my writeup lacked an example and details so I reproduced the code that X uses and I was able to boil down the issue to a couple of lines of code. Sorry again for the length of this email. Code was compiled on OpenBSD with clang 3.0-release. ======================================================================== With -O0 which works as X expects:
2008 Feb 27
2
[LLVMdev] llvm/test: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
On Feb 27, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > Some additional info: > > I just found the .s files mentioned in the error message, and checked > them. All error messages refer to one of the following four > instructions: > pushl %ebp > pushl %esi > popl %ebp > popl %esi > It's always the same error, "suffix or operands invalid for >
2004 Nov 12
2
Boot from CD -> system + data on USB storage
Hi, I am looking for a solution to boot MY system on any PC. To store most of the system and all of my data I want to use an USB storage (in my case an external USB harddisk (2.0 capable)). Since booting off an USB device is not an universal thing I would prefer to have a boot disk with a minimal system - just enough to load most (all?) of the system from the attached USB device. Is this an
2008 Feb 27
0
[LLVMdev] llvm/test: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
Some additional info: I just found the .s files mentioned in the error message, and checked them. All error messages refer to one of the following four instructions: pushl %ebp pushl %esi popl %ebp popl %esi It's always the same error, "suffix or operands invalid for `push'" (resp `pop'). There are no other push or pop instructions in any .s file.
2011 Dec 14
2
[LLVMdev] Failure to optimize ? operator
I don't understand your point. Which version is better does NOT depend on what inputs are passed to the function. The compiled code for (as per llvm) f1 will always take less time to execute than f2. for x > 0 => T(f1) < T(f2) for x <= 0 => T(f1) = T(f2) where T() is the time to execute the given function. So always T(f1) <= T(f2). I would call this a missed
2016 Jun 28
2
[GSoC 2016] Implementation of the packing transformation
2016-06-27 15:52 GMT+05:00 4lbert C0hen <4lbert.h.c0hen at gmail.com>: > Dear Roman and all, > > Such features would be extremely useful to implement array expansion (scalar > and array renaming, privatization with new subscript expressions of higher > dimension) and storage mapping optimization (generalizing array > contraction). It would be interesting to have these
2019 Aug 08
2
Suboptimal code generated by clang+llc in quite a common scenario (?)
I found a something that I quite not understand when compiling a common piece of code using the -Os flags. I found it while testing my own backend but then I got deeper and found that at least the x86 is affected as well. This is the referred code: char pp[3]; char *scscx = pp; int tst( char i, char j, char k ) { scscx[0] = i; scscx[1] = j; scscx[2] = k; return 0; } The above gets
2007 Apr 18
8
[PATCH 0/7] x86 paravirtualization infrastructure
The following patches introduce the core infrastructure needed to paravirtualize the 32-bit x86 Linux kernel. This is done by moving virtualization sensitive insn's or code paths to a function table, paravirt_ops. This structure can be populated with hypervisor specific calls or native stubs and currently support running on bare metal, VMI, Xen, or Lhype. These patches apply to
2007 Apr 18
8
[PATCH 0/7] x86 paravirtualization infrastructure
The following patches introduce the core infrastructure needed to paravirtualize the 32-bit x86 Linux kernel. This is done by moving virtualization sensitive insn's or code paths to a function table, paravirt_ops. This structure can be populated with hypervisor specific calls or native stubs and currently support running on bare metal, VMI, Xen, or Lhype. These patches apply to
2007 Apr 18
5
[PATCH] paravirt.h
This version over last version: (1) Gets rid of the no_paravirt.h header and leaves native ops in place (with some reshuffling to keep then under one #ifdef). (2) Fixes the "X crashes with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y" bug. (3) Puts __ex_table entry in paravirt iret. Another followup patch implements binary patching... Rusty. === Create a paravirt.h header for all the critical operations which
2007 Apr 18
5
[PATCH] paravirt.h
This version over last version: (1) Gets rid of the no_paravirt.h header and leaves native ops in place (with some reshuffling to keep then under one #ifdef). (2) Fixes the "X crashes with CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y" bug. (3) Puts __ex_table entry in paravirt iret. Another followup patch implements binary patching... Rusty. === Create a paravirt.h header for all the critical operations which
2008 Jun 11
0
[LLVMdev] Miscompilation on MingW32
Hello, I have this simple IR: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ define internal i32 @tmp(i32 %x) { entry: br label %entry2 entry2: %x1 = alloca i32 %x2 = alloca i32 %retval = alloca i32 %dummy = alloca i32 store i32 %x, i32* %x1 store i32 %x, i32* %x2 %tmp1 = load i32* %x1 %tmp2 = add i32 %tmp1, %tmp1
2012 Mar 28
2
[LLVMdev] Suboptimal code due to excessive spilling
Hi, I have run into the following strange behavior and wanted to ask for some advice. For the C program below, function sum() gets inlined in foo() but the code generated looks very suboptimal (the code is an extract from a larger program). Below I show the 32-bit x86 assembly as produced by the demo page on the llvm home page ("Output A"). As you can see from the assembly, after
2007 May 21
2
changing definition of paravirt_ops.iret
I'm implementing a more efficient version of the Xen iret paravirt_op, so that it can use the real iret instruction where possible. I really need to get access to per-cpu variables, so I can set the event mask state in the vcpu_info structure, but unfortunately at the point where INTERRUPT_RETURN is used in entry.S, the usermode %fs has already been restored. How would you feel if we changed