search for: qualifed

We have a tenant who has been having issues with a congested connection and in trouble shooting it we've noticed that there seems to be a lot of SIP traffic even when none of the phones are doing anything. We've determined that this traffic is mostly INFO packets generated by setting qualify=2000. I understand that 2000 ms is the default value for the qualification parameter but what

Hi all, I have a question related to GSoC. One of my students submitted an idea [1] for a GSoC project and I would be interested in (co-)mentoring this project but I'm unsure of the qualification requirements for acting as a mentor. Is there anyone that can clarify the requirements here? I have been working with LLVM for several years now but mostly on projects outside of the main LLVM

Hi, I'm splitting this discussion off of my RFC for release process changes. We currently have no official release qualification criteria. In other words, we don't have any blocking tests that need to pass in order to make a new release. We do time-based releases, which is not always compatible with having quality-based criteria for tagging a final release. So, I think another way to

Hi Raja, I'm open to suggestions. Our current release qualification is to bootstrap the compiler (similar to how GCC does their bootstrapping), run the test suites, and verify that there are no regressions. Improving the test suite is always welcome. In addition, we send out pre-release tarballs and have people in the community build and test their programs with it. This is not a perfect

On Oct 11, 2011, at 2:43 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes: > >> Improving the test suite is always welcome. > > Do we have an idea of what sorts of improvements we'd like? Any codes > that we want to add, for example? What would be useful for ARM? > >> In addition, we send out pre-release tarballs and have

Evan, > I'm the code owner of LLVM codegen and targets. I'm also the one of main developers on the original ARM target. That means, I would make the decisions on major development on ARM target if there are decisions to be made. > > But my role is very different from what people are looking for in this thread. To properly qualify a target like ARM which are supported on many

On 17-03-17 22:34, Mehdi Amini wrote: >> On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Roel Jordans via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have a question related to GSoC. One of my students submitted an idea [1] for a GSoC project and I would be interested in (co-)mentoring this project but I'm unsure of the qualification requirements for

I am very interested in seeing a qualification plan for ARM given that it is a widely used target with several combinations of options/modes to be tested. I & my team use ARM hardware for running tests and we run all test LLVM test suite tests as part of qualification process. I had started a similar conversation in llvm-commits, but this is probably the right forum. It will save everyone a

Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes: > Improving the test suite is always welcome. Do we have an idea of what sorts of improvements we'd like? Any codes that we want to add, for example? What would be useful for ARM? > In addition, we send out pre-release tarballs and have people in the > community build and test their programs with it. This is not a perfect >

Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes: >> It is in fact highly in my own interest to get them running. I just >> need to be pointed to the document that tells me what the buildbot >> master expects to see and defines a procedure for adding them as slaves. >> > Daniel may have the details you need to get this up and running. Great! It would also help if

Tanya Lattner <lattner at apple.com> writes: >> Resources isn't the only problem. I've asked several times about adding >> my personal machines to the testing pool but I never get a reply. So >> there they sit idle every day, processing the occasional e-mail when >> they could be chewing LLVM tests. >> > > I'm pretty sure this has been

On Oct 14, 2011, at 12:37 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > Tanya Lattner <lattner at apple.com> writes: > >>> Resources isn't the only problem. I've asked several times about adding >>> my personal machines to the testing pool but I never get a reply. So >>> there they sit idle every day, processing the occasional e-mail when >>> they could

From: Mihai Don?u <mdontu at bitdefender.com> This should make the code more readable. Signed-off-by: Mihai Don?u <mdontu at bitdefender.com> Signed-off-by: Adalbert Laz?r <alazar at bitdefender.com> --- arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c index 7a61427af370..538044edddfc

On Oct 11, 2011, at 2:43 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes: > >> Improving the test suite is always welcome. > > Do we have an idea of what sorts of improvements we'd like? Any codes > that we want to add, for example? What would be useful for ARM? > >> In addition, we send out pre-release tarballs and have

On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:20:17PM -0500, David A. Greene wrote: >> This seems excessive and unrealistic. We're never going to come up with >> a testsuite that satisfies everyone's needs and doing so could well be >> counter-productive. If no one can commit anything unless it passes >> every test

> On Mar 18, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > (Adding Anton here) > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:42 PM Roel Jordans via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > On 17-03-17 22:34, Mehdi Amini wrote: > >> On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Roel Jordans via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

"Raja Venkateswaran" <rajav at codeaurora.org> writes: > I think we need to think along two dimensions - Breadth of testing and depth > of testing > > 1. Breadth: What the best supported ARM ISA versions in LLVM ARM? Say its > armv6 and armv7; We need to > - regression test ARM mode, Thumb-2 and Thumb-1 mode (armv6) > - Performance/code-size test ARM mode,

Dear Richard Grainger, I am grateful for your reply and guidance. After reading the following article at nginx.com, I realize that I should use a reverse proxy instead of a load balancer. Article: WHAT IS A REVERSE PROXY VS. LOAD BALANCER? Link: https://www.nginx.com/resources/glossary/reverse-proxy-vs-load-balancer/ Presently, I am using pfSense community edition firewall. Can I install

I am very interested in seeing a qualification plan for ARM given that it is a widely used target with several combinations of options/modes to be tested. I & my team use ARM hardware for running tests and we run all LLVM test suite tests as part of qualification process. I had started a similar conversation in llvm-commits, but this is probably the right forum. It will save everyone a lot of

The Apple compiler and debugger teams are seeking exceptional engineers (to work on LLVM, Clang and LLDB) who are passionate about improving software development tools. Detailed job descriptions follow. Please send all responses to llvm-job-apply at group.apple.com, including the relevant job title and a CV. 1. Clang Frontend Engineer In this position, you will work on general frontend