search for: reusing

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > The main motivation for turning it off is that no known consumer (debugger) > took advantage of it. > > Turning it on does more than slightly increase the object file size, it can > cause the same source line to be listed multiple times in the .debug_line > table (with different

The UDP binding logic will reuse local port numbers immediately. This causes problems for TFTP, which assumes a very low probability of a source port number being reused. The consequence is that lpxelinux.0 may end up downloading an incorrect file (e.g. attempting to download pxelinux.cfg/default but actually receiving a copy of ldlinux.c32, due to the port number having been reused). Fix by

...the free'ed BasicBlock is used as a key in a DenseMap or something -- > > if another BasicBlock gets allocated to the same location we'll end > up > > returning bad cached results. > > > > > > ASan's allocator is specifically hardened against reusing memory, which > > mitigates this, but I'm not sure by how much (but I think by a > > significant amount). > > Do you mean it will re-use memory less often? Won't that just hide > the bug above? If anything, I don't want ASan to "mitigate" bugs, I > wa...

The following changes since commit afd2ff9b7e1b367172f18ba7f693dfb62bdcb2dc: Linux 4.4 (2016-01-10 15:01:32 -0800) are available in the git repository at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git tags/for_linus for you to fetch changes up to 43e361f23c49dbddf74f56ddf6cdd85c5dbff6da: checkpatch: add virt barriers (2016-01-12 20:47:08 +0200)

The following changes since commit afd2ff9b7e1b367172f18ba7f693dfb62bdcb2dc: Linux 4.4 (2016-01-10 15:01:32 -0800) are available in the git repository at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git tags/for_linus for you to fetch changes up to 43e361f23c49dbddf74f56ddf6cdd85c5dbff6da: checkpatch: add virt barriers (2016-01-12 20:47:08 +0200)

I'm looking for a way to approximate the "zero-overhead" model of code reuse available in languages like Python, Perl, etc. I've described this idea in more detail, and the motivation for this question in an earlier post to R-help (https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2016-September/442174.html). (One of the responses I got advised that I post my question here instead.) The

Dear LLVM-Mailing-List, I'm using the llvm::EngineBuilder to create an instance of the llvm::ExecutionEngine, I then JIT my code, take the addresses I need and delete the llvm::ExecutionEngine. But now I started to wonder, if I could reuse that instance for a new module again? I first tried calling llvm::EngineBuilder without setting a Module, I planned to add it later - but when I do this

Heyho, I can only provide you with a screenshot for the first problem I noticed: [https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/534012750045642783/575369402195640321/unknown.png] This code will crash when calling "eeBuilder.create". But I also looked at what happens if I do reuse the llvm::ExecutionEngine. After the call to "finalizeObject" I use "removeModule" for the

...FLAGS<imp-def,dead> ; srcLine 0 Processing operand %reg2564<def> Processing operand %reg2564 Processing operand <fi#113> Processing operand 1 Processing operand %reg0 Processing operand 0 Processing operand %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead> DoReMat = 0, SSorRMId = 165 Got PhysReg = 51 Reusing SS#165 from physreg R12 for vreg2564 instead of reloading into physreg R12 %reg2564<def> = IMUL64rm %R12, <fi#113>, 1, %reg0, 0, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead> ; srcLine 0 Folded vreg: 2395 MR: 1 - StackSlot: 113 Processing def operand %reg2564<def> StackSlot for def = 165 Store...

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6816 Summary: Delta-transfer algorithm does not reuse already transmitted identical blocks Product: rsync Version: 3.0.5 Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned

Hey, Is there any way to share?MySQL?connection between different agi's.Actually when call comes to asterisk box it executes various agi scripts sequentially. Each script checks various values by making a new?MySQL?connection and then execute query and then disconnects.? So,?Ideally?there should be one connection, and it should be reused between each agi and when a call is over it should be

Hi, Is it generally safe to cache a FunctionPassManager and reuse it on modules other than the one it was constructed with (assuming they have the same target triple)? paul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110923/cd845b59/attachment.html>

...he code generator complains: nios2-elf-ecc: /home/rich/llvm-trunk-new/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ScheduleDAG.cpp:141: void llvm::ScheduleDAG::BuildSchedUnits(): Assertion `N->getNodeId() == -1 && "Node already inserted!"' failed I'm guessing that's because I'm reusing Op1 and Op2. What is the right way to reuse DAG operands? -Rich

...but I guess that is because the passes added by createStandardFunctionPasses don't touch the Module. paul -----Original Message----- From: Nick Lewycky [mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 12:21 PM To: Redmond, Paul Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] reusing FunctionPassManager with different Modules On 09/23/2011 11:28 AM, Redmond, Paul wrote: > Hi, > > Is it generally safe to cache a FunctionPassManager and reuse it on > modules other than the one it was constructed with (assuming they have > the same target triple)? No. FunctionPa...

...orizer: >>> Vectorizer might generate redundant alias checks while vectorizing epilog loop. >>> Redundant alias checks are expensive, we like to reuse the results of already computed alias checks. >>> With metadata we can limit the width of epilog loop, but not sure about reusing alias check result. >>> Any thoughts on rerunning vectorizer with reusing the alias check result ? >> >> One way of looking at this is: Reusing the alias-check result is really just a conditional propagation problem; if we don't already have an optimization that can combin...

I'm seeing the following failures with "make check" (x86-32 linux): FAIL: test/CodeGen/X86/fold-mul-lohi.ll Failed with exit(1) at line 2 while running: llvm-as < test/CodeGen/X86/fold-mul-lohi.ll | llc -march=x86-64 | not grep lea leaq B, %rsi leaq A, %r8 leaq P, %rsi child process exited abnormally FAIL:

...2* %k, align 4 But this is not required, Since *a-b* is already there in that virtual register *%sub. *So I can rewrite the highlighted code ( eliminating redundancy ) as * store i32 %sub, i32* %k, align 4* and can delete the statement *%sub1 = sub nsw i32 %tmp2, %tmp3 * But, If in case LLVM is reusing *%sub *in between to hold some other computations, then there will be some errors in my computation. So I want to make sure that LLVM won't reuse any of these virtual registers. I hope it clarifies. On 18 March 2016 at 13:39, mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote: > &gt...

...xpose a VHOST device. > > And we will introduce a new mdev driver vhost-mdev to do this. > > It would be natural to reuse the existing kernel vhost interface > > (ioctls) on it as much as possible. But we will need to invent > > some APIs for DMA programming (reusing VHOST_SET_MEM_TABLE is a > > choice, but it's too heavy and doesn't support vIOMMU by itself). > > This version is more like a quick PoC to try Jason's proposal on > reusing vhost ioctls. And the second way (#1/B) in above three > choices was chosen in this versio...

...xpose a VHOST device. > > And we will introduce a new mdev driver vhost-mdev to do this. > > It would be natural to reuse the existing kernel vhost interface > > (ioctls) on it as much as possible. But we will need to invent > > some APIs for DMA programming (reusing VHOST_SET_MEM_TABLE is a > > choice, but it's too heavy and doesn't support vIOMMU by itself). > > This version is more like a quick PoC to try Jason's proposal on > reusing vhost ioctls. And the second way (#1/B) in above three > choices was chosen in this versio...

I want to replace an existing 32bit with a 64bit installation (Centos 5). There's an existing LVM with lots of partitions. Most are used for Xen guests. The system itself uses only one of them plus a separate /boot partition that is not on LVM. What's the best course of action here? Should I do the reinstall with kickstart or better manually and reuse the existing filesystem? As I