search for: r85295

In r85295, in response to the discussion at http://llvm.org/PR5184 (Lazy JIT ain't thread-safe), I changed the default JIT from lazy to non-lazy. It has since come to my attention that this may have been the wrong change, so I wanted to ask you guys. A couple reasons to make the default non-lazy compila...

On Oct 28, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > In r85295, in response to the discussion at http://llvm.org/PR5184 > (Lazy JIT ain't thread-safe), I changed the default JIT from lazy to > non-lazy. It has since come to my attention that this may have been > the wrong change, so I wanted to ask you guys. > > A couple reasons to make the...

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > >> In r85295, in response to the discussion at http://llvm.org/PR5184 >> (Lazy JIT ain't thread-safe), I changed the default JIT from lazy to >> non-lazy. It has since come to my attention that this may have been >> the wrong change, so I wanted to ask you guys. >> >> A couple...

...ould be surprised by needing to enable lazy JIT are those long familiar with past behavior. In the OSS world, I always favor easing adoption over maintaining the status quo. My meager 2 cents. -Chandler On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: > In r85295, in response to the discussion at http://llvm.org/PR5184 > (Lazy JIT ain't thread-safe), I changed the default JIT from lazy to > non-lazy. It has since come to my attention that this may have been > the wrong change, so I wanted to ask you guys. > > A couple reasons to make the...

...to start using it in new and interesting ways, we should >> just design a new JIT. > >>> My meager 2 cents. >>> -Chandler >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com >>> > wrote: >>>> In r85295, in response to the discussion at http://llvm.org/PR5184 >>>> (Lazy JIT ain't thread-safe), I changed the default JIT from lazy >>>> to >>>> non-lazy. It has since come to my attention that this may have been >>>> the wrong change, so I wanted t...

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Oct 28, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: >> >>> In r85295, in response to the discussion at http://llvm.org/PR5184 >>> (Lazy JIT ain't thread-safe), I changed the default JIT from lazy to >>> non-lazy. It has since come to my attention that this may have been >>> the wrong change, so I wanted to ask you guys. >>> &g...

...he lazy JIT a good idea for them? > If we want to start using it in new and interesting ways, we should just design a new JIT. >> My meager 2 cents. >> -Chandler >> >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: >>> In r85295, in response to the discussion at http://llvm.org/PR5184 >>> (Lazy JIT ain't thread-safe), I changed the default JIT from lazy to >>> non-lazy. It has since come to my attention that this may have been >>> the wrong change, so I wanted to ask you guys. >>> &g...

...new JIT. >>> >>>>> My meager 2 cents. >>>>> -Chandler >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In r85295, in response to the discussion at http://llvm.org/PR5184 >>>>>> (Lazy JIT ain't thread-safe), I changed the default JIT from lazy to >>>>>> non-lazy. It has since come to my attention that this may have been >>>>>> the wrong change, so I wan...

...w. I'd prefer not to change the behavior. If we want to start using it in new and interesting ways, we should just design a new JIT. Evan > > My meager 2 cents. > -Chandler > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: >> In r85295, in response to the discussion at http://llvm.org/PR5184 >> (Lazy JIT ain't thread-safe), I changed the default JIT from lazy to >> non-lazy. It has since come to my attention that this may have been >> the wrong change, so I wanted to ask you guys. >> >> A couple...

...e should just >>> design a new JIT. >> >>>> My meager 2 cents. >>>> -Chandler >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In r85295, in response to the discussion at http://llvm.org/PR5184 >>>>> (Lazy JIT ain't thread-safe), I changed the default JIT from lazy to >>>>> non-lazy. It has since come to my attention that this may have been >>>>> the wrong change, so I wanted to ask y...

...t;>>>>> My meager 2 cents. >>>>>> -Chandler >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In r85295, in response to the discussion at http://llvm.org/PR5184 >>>>>>> (Lazy JIT ain't thread-safe), I changed the default JIT from lazy to >>>>>>> non-lazy. It has since come to my attention that this may have been >>>>>>> the wrong chan...

Hi all, We are running a new Centos-4 server, and it has kernel panicked on us 4 times in the last month. After the first kernel panic we hooked up a serial console to the server and captured the output in order to have a record of what happens. I've included the error messages from the last time it locked up... but it doesn't really mean much to me. Anybody have any ideas what might be

...y meager 2 cents. >>>>>>> -Chandler >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In r85295, in response to the discussion at http://llvm.org/PR5184 >>>>>>>> (Lazy JIT ain't thread-safe), I changed the default JIT from lazy to >>>>>>>> non-lazy. It has since come to my attention that this may have been >>>>>>>> th...

...cents. >>>>>>> -Chandler >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In r85295, in response to the discussion at http://llvm.org/PR5184 >>>>>>>> (Lazy JIT ain't thread-safe), I changed the default JIT from lazy to >>>>>>>> non-lazy. It has since come to my attention that this may have been >>>>>>>> th...

...gt; >>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin >>>>>>>> <jyasskin at google.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In r85295, in response to the discussion at http://llvm.org/PR5184 >>>>>>>>> (Lazy JIT ain't thread-safe), I changed the default JIT from lazy >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> non-lazy. It has since come to my attention that this may...