search for: redundand

...t the branch target offsets are correct within the function, and for that reason this all matters. 3) I noticed with libjit that the reg-allocator and alias analysis (assuming this exists in libjit) is not the best. I wonder if llvm will have a problem. If I make the appropriate llvm calls to redundandly load an integer of a pointer several times (e.g. (goo == *a) .... .... (foo == *a)), will llvm make every effort to reusue the temp created to store *a initially in the second reference? I tried this out with the llvm demo, and the C code generated automatically created a temp for the first loa...

...you to compile and link a shared library and then dlopen it in your runtime facility. > 3) I noticed with libjit that the reg-allocator and alias analysis (assuming > this exists in libjit) is not the best.  I wonder if llvm will have a > problem.  If I make the appropriate llvm calls to redundandly load an > integer of a pointer several times (e.g. (goo == *a) .... ....  (foo == > *a)), will llvm make every effort to reusue the temp created to store *a > initially in the second reference?  I tried this out with the llvm demo, and > the C code generated automatically created a te...

...a shared > library and then dlopen it in your runtime facility. > > > 3) I noticed with libjit that the reg-allocator and alias analysis (assuming > > this exists in libjit) is not the best. I wonder if llvm will have a > > problem. If I make the appropriate llvm calls to redundandly load an > > integer of a pointer several times (e.g. (goo == *a) .... .... (foo == > > *a)), will llvm make every effort to reusue the temp created to store *a > > initially in the second reference? I tried this out with the llvm demo, and > > the C code generated automa...

...a shared > library and then dlopen it in your runtime facility. > > > 3) I noticed with libjit that the reg-allocator and alias analysis (assuming > > this exists in libjit) is not the best. I wonder if llvm will have a > > problem. If I make the appropriate llvm calls to redundandly load an > > integer of a pointer several times (e.g. (goo == *a) .... .... (foo == > > *a)), will llvm make every effort to reusue the temp created to store *a > > initially in the second reference? I tried this out with the llvm demo, and > > the C code generated automa...

I''m building a system with two Apple RAIDs attached. I have hardware RAID5 configured so no RAIDZ or RAIDZ2, just a basic zpool pointing at the four LUNs representing the four RAID controllers. For on-going maintenance, will a zpool scrub be of any benefit? From what I''ve read with this layer of abstration ZFS is only maintaining the metadata and not the actual data on the

...n dlopen it in your runtime facility. >> >> > 3) I noticed with libjit that the reg-allocator and alias analysis >> > (assuming >> > this exists in libjit) is not the best.  I wonder if llvm will have a >> > problem.  If I make the appropriate llvm calls to redundandly load an >> > integer of a pointer several times (e.g. (goo == *a) .... ....  (foo == >> > *a)), will llvm make every effort to reusue the temp created to store *a >> > initially in the second reference?  I tried this out with the llvm demo, >> > and >> &g...