search for: rerolled

On 3 June 2015 at 19:57, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote: > There's a loop reroll pass in LLVM trunk that should do exactly this transformation. Though that's a loop pass (runOnLoop). What you could do is add a previous pass that would recognize the pattern and create a loop of 1 iteration around the code and then run the reroll pass. If your pattern recognition

Hi all I am working on k-means algorithm (in R: kmeans( ) ). The R-help advice us to try several random start in order to avoid local minimum. Does one know if there is a procedure that automaticly run this rerolling and select the best partition ? Or any studies that gives clues on the number of rerolling ? Thanks for helping. Christophe

I mistakenly not cc’ed the list. On Oct 23, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 23 October 2013 14:13, Arnold <aschwaighofer at apple.com> wrote: >> What I am proposing for interleaved data vectorization would not transform the loop before vectorization (because there is not much you can do in the general case). There would not be a need

On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 02:20:46PM +0100, Michael Nottebrock wrote: [distfile rerolls] > I didn't know that I was supposed to perform a security audit and I did not do > so. So if anyone happens to have the old distfile still around, please send > it my way, cause I don't. I suggest next time instead of marking a port as > BROKEN= Checksum mismatch, mark it as BROKEN= Needs

Hey guys, in an HPC project I am working on I am given an LLVM program consisting of a linear sequence of repetitive junks of code with an uniform memory access pattern. Each code junk does the following: 1) loads some memory, 2) performs some arithmetic operations, 3) stores the result back to memory. The memory stride between consecutive junks is constant over the whole program, thus the

...the quota error. But a *move* just >>> happily piles on to the overquota namespace. Is that normal? >> >> Probably needs a bit more thinking, but I guess the attached patch would >> help. >> >> > I appreciate the patch! Esp on a Weds night. I applied and rerolled > dovecot, but I can still move messages into the over-quota namespace. How about this updated patch? > Out of curiosity, in the Quota wiki page, it mentions that 'in theory there > could be e.g. "user quota" and "domain quota" roots'. That's also super &g...

On 23 Nov 2016, at 0.49, Mark Moseley <moseleymark at gmail.com> wrote: > > If I move messages between namespaces, it appears to ignore the quotas I've > set on them. A *copy* will trigger the quota error. But a *move* just > happily piles on to the overquota namespace. Is that normal? Probably needs a bit more thinking, but I guess the attached patch would help.

On Feb 7, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: >>> 1. "Target Data" for vectorization - I think that in order to improve >>> the vectorization quality, the vectorizer will need more information >>> about the target. This information could be provided in the form of a >>> kind of extended target data. This extended target data might contain:

On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 17:26 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 7, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > >>> 1. "Target Data" for vectorization - I think that in order to improve > >>> the vectorization quality, the vectorizer will need more information > >>> about the target. This information could be provided in the form of a > >>>

On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 14:26 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:56 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > As some of you may know, I committed my basic-block autovectorization > > pass a few days ago. I encourage anyone interested to try it out (pass > > -vectorize to opt or -mllvm -vectorize to clang) and provide feedback. > > Especially in combination with

Tom (and Andy, Owen, Evan, Nadav), I'd like the following commits placed into the 3.4.1 branch. I've attempted to sort this list by code owner: Andrew Trick: r203719 - PR17473 r203725 - This test need the X86 backend, move it to the X86 sub directory. [adjusts the test location from r203719] r202273 - Fix PR18165: LSR must avoid scaling factors that exceed the limit on truncated use.

...stead of O(log N), where N is alphabet size), if the huffman tree would be left (or right; I prefer left) aligned. Ask me for pointers if you need convincing. The code I submit now could be more clean, I know. Seems to work though. Weird. unrolled && rerolled the decodevs loops. envelope.c if (fabs(...) < min) creates horrible assembler (gcc 2.95, x86), so changed to if (... < min && ... > -min). muchos faster. lsp.c put the fromdB() before linearmap cales.h todB_nn() for non-negative values. fabs() i...

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Ayers <andya at microsoft.com> wrote: > While your bb count distribution is extremely likely to be some kind of power-law like distribution, it's not guaranteed. > > Also you might think about operations that can amplify (rerolling) or appear to amplify (TRE) or diminish BB counts, and how you'd go about reclassifying block hotness. yes

...on them. A *copy* will trigger the quota error. But a *move* just > > happily piles on to the overquota namespace. Is that normal? > > Probably needs a bit more thinking, but I guess the attached patch would > help. > > I appreciate the patch! Esp on a Weds night. I applied and rerolled dovecot, but I can still move messages into the over-quota namespace. I threw some i_debug's into quota_roots_equal() (and one right at the top), but I don't ever see them in the debug logs. But both "ctx->moving" and "src_box == NULL" are true, so it never calls qu...

...st > >>> happily piles on to the overquota namespace. Is that normal? > >> > >> Probably needs a bit more thinking, but I guess the attached patch would > >> help. > >> > >> > > I appreciate the patch! Esp on a Weds night. I applied and rerolled > > dovecot, but I can still move messages into the over-quota namespace. > > How about this updated patch? > > Nope, still lets me move messages into the over-quota namespace. Both these are true in quota_check: ctx->moving quota_move_requires_check > > Out of curi...

I saw that there is a local root exploit in the wild. http://blog.kagesenshi.org/2008/02/local-root-exploit-on-wild.html And I see my centos box still has: 2.6.18-53.1.4.el5 yum says there are no updates... am I safe? Valent.

...s on to the overquota namespace. Is that normal? >> >> >> >> Probably needs a bit more thinking, but I guess the attached patch >> would >> >> help. >> >> >> >> >> > I appreciate the patch! Esp on a Weds night. I applied and rerolled >> > dovecot, but I can still move messages into the over-quota namespace. >> >> How about this updated patch? >> >> > Nope, still lets me move messages into the over-quota namespace. > > Both these are true in quota_check: > > ctx->moving > quo...

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Andy Ayers <andya at microsoft.com> wrote: > I’ve done similar rankings with profile data and found it worked out pretty > well. > > > > In my case it was ranking function hotness but the idea was similar: sort by > weight, compute various percentile cutoff points, and use those to classify. > I put in some compensation for truly

On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 17:26 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 7, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > >>> 1. "Target Data" for vectorization - I think that in order to improve > >>> the vectorization quality, the vectorizer will need more information > >>> about the target. This information could be provided in the form of a > >>>

So I'm running nfs to get content to my web servers. Now I've had this problem 2 times (about 2 weeks since the last occurrence). I use drbd on the nfs server for redundancy. Now to my problem: All my web sites stopped responding so I started by checking dmesg and there I found a bunch of this errors || Aug 11 16:00:39 web03 kernel: lockd: server 192.168.20.22 not responding, timed out