search for: shouldnot

Hello, The code snippet pasted in the previous email are generated at -O0 with llc. Since I am inserting a new basic block (contains printf statement and program exit) which is jumped upon based on the result of the comparison, the compiler cannot/shouldnot optimize that away by means of DCE or anything else. The same kind of stuff is happening for the following duplication. bb6.split: ; preds = %bb6 %33 = load i32* %32, align 4 %34 = load i32* %i, align 4 %HV4_3 = sub nsw i32 %34, %33 %35 = sub nsw i32...

...???? idmap config * : backend = tdb ????? idmap config * : range 10000-199999 ????? idmap config DOMAIN : backend = autorid ????? idmap config DOMAIN : range = 200000-2147483647 ??? Ensure the BUILTIN\Guests is mapped ??? Raw ??? net groupman list sid=S-1-5-32-546 Does not bother me shoulds and shouldnots, I'm doing it, and facing a problem which I'd hope can be solved without changing a lot. User db is in LDAP and winbind is not used. many thanks, L.

...le API. > Can you give more more background on this? When would you want and undef that causes the whatever defined atom replaces it to be never dead stripped? We have these options a) -entry <symbolname> b) -init <symbolname> c) -fini <symbolname> The atoms created for this shouldnot be dead stripped, as there is an explicit reference from the command line. The other options such as a) --defsym newsymbol = oldsymbol + 100 b) --wrap newsymbol have the other effect that if there is no reference to the symbols /newsymbol, and __wrap_newsymbol, /the atoms are removed. Also ra...

On 6 July 2011 15:57, D S Khudia <daya.khudia at gmail.com> wrote: > Since I am inserting a new basic block (contains printf statement and > program exit) which is jumped upon based on the result of > the comparison, the compiler cannot/shouldnot optimize that away by means of > DCE or anything else. It most certainly can, since the comparison yields always the same result. The compiler can replace all that by a simple branch to whatever block always executes. > In the above example even the operands are not same and I guess compil...

hi This is Tarun from Indusa Global , Jamaica pl. reply regards -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tarun.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 180 bytes Desc: Card for tarun kumar Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/19990727/506b9d4c/tarun.vcf

...e *.ll file, parse it and execute it. but there is a thread_local global variable. during execution, it says: Cannot allocate thread local storage on this arch! UNREACHABLE executed at /root/llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86JITInfo.cpp:585!. it seems that i did not initialize the executionEngine right or i shouldnot use InitializeNativeTarget()? i don't know how to solve it. does anyone have the same problem? -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/how-to-execute-a-ll-with-a-thread-local-global-variable-tp52533.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com...

On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:20 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > Can we add deadStrip() to undefinedAtoms as well ? > > This will enable to choose whether we want to set the property deadStripNormal or deadStripNever on them. > > Also I think it will be cleaner for atoms to be added to deadStripRoot set using a single API. Can you give more more background on this? When would you want

On 6 July 2011 14:55, D S Khudia <daya.khudia at gmail.com> wrote: > The following is an example code generation for arm and x86 for a same IR > BB. In the x86 code I can see that the same computation is done twice and > result is stored in two different registers and then these two different > registers are used for comparision. Yes, but you shouldn't rely on it, since the

...p config * : range 10000-199999 > ????? idmap config DOMAIN : backend = autorid > ????? idmap config DOMAIN : range = 200000-2147483647 > > ??? Ensure the BUILTIN\Guests is mapped > ??? Raw > > ??? net groupman list sid=S-1-5-32-546 > > > Does not bother me shoulds and shouldnots, I'm doing it, and > facing a problem which I'd hope can be solved without > changing a lot. User db is in LDAP and winbind is not used. > many thanks, L. > > > any experts roaming around? To make it a bit bizarre - it only happens to one of the three Sambas which re vir...

hi everyone, I believe a resolution is there - https://access.redhat.com/solutions/4367771 But what I'm hoping for is an expert would comment how would this apply to Samba with LDAP backend? many thanks, L.

Hi, Can we add deadStrip() to undefinedAtoms as well ? This will enable to choose whether we want to set the property deadStripNormal or deadStripNever on them. Also I think it will be cleaner for atoms to be added to deadStripRoot set using a single API. Thanks Shankar Easwaran -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation

Thank you for replying. Yes. The remaining part of the BB is in splitted basic block. The following is an example code generation for arm and x86 for a same IR BB. In the x86 code I can see that the same computation is done twice and result is stored in two different registers and then these two different registers are used for comparision. By the way I am duplicating instruction and inserting

...olin at arm.com> wrote: > On 6 July 2011 15:57, D S Khudia <daya.khudia at gmail.com> wrote: > > Since I am inserting a new basic block (contains printf statement and > > program exit) which is jumped upon based on the result of > > the comparison, the compiler cannot/shouldnot optimize that away by means > of > > DCE or anything else. > > It most certainly can, since the comparison yields always the same > result. The compiler can replace all that by a simple branch to > whatever block always executes. > > > > In the above example even th...