search for: sidefx

Hi, -- This message refers to the maillist itself rather than to dovecot software -- I have noticed that when I post to this list (only), I get DKIM Verification failure reports from: root at moncton.sidefx.com (e.g. for my last post: "DKIM failure report for job 4D27B5DC4E on mail.sidefx.com") root at mail.rmacd.com (e.g. for my last post: "DKIM failure report for job B69B3187F1 on mail.rmacd.com") root at mx0.roessner-net.de (e.g. for my last post: "DKIM failure report f...

...9;m debating between Debian with xfs or FreeBSD with zfs. I'm not sure which way to go. I'm migrating from cyrus. I have about 50 users so it's not a large setup. Cheers! Monika -- Monika Janek Systems Administrator, Side Effects Software Toronto, Ontario Canada 416-504-9876 x207 www.sidefx.com

...oning functionality assumes that only one context is > being used. Even if the serialization isn't efficient as a clone > could be, it should give you very high confidence that everything Just > Works. :) > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Andrew Clinton <andrew at sidefx.com > <mailto:andrew at sidefx.com>> wrote: > > I have a Module/LLVMContext that I'd like to clone and manipulate > in different threads (each thread may perform different > translation / optimization, so they need unique copies). > Currently this pr...

...mory. I think all of the IR cloning functionality assumes that only one context is being used. Even if the serialization isn't efficient as a clone could be, it should give you very high confidence that everything Just Works. :) On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Andrew Clinton <andrew at sidefx.com> wrote: > I have a Module/LLVMContext that I'd like to clone and manipulate in > different threads (each thread may perform different translation / > optimization, so they need unique copies). Currently this process has to > be locked, since each clone of the Module still r...

I have a Module/LLVMContext that I'd like to clone and manipulate in different threads (each thread may perform different translation / optimization, so they need unique copies). Currently this process has to be locked, since each clone of the Module still refers to the same LLVMContext. Is there a way to clone both the Module and LLVMContext so that the copies can be manipulated

...still apply as the TimingInfo's destructor (PassManager.cpp) is still never called. Running it in the debugger shows that TimerGroup's removeTimer method is never called, nor is it's destructor (but it's constructor is). On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Andrew Clinton <andrew at sidefx.com> wrote: > I got it working with this: > >     int          argc = 2; >     const char  *argv[2] = {"myopt", "-time-passes"}; > >     cl::ParseCommandLineOptions(argc, (char **)argv, "my optimizer"); > > On 06/01/2011 01:19 PM, Michael Ils...

...ngInfo's destructor (PassManager.cpp) > is still never called. Running it in the debugger shows that > TimerGroup's removeTimer method is never called, nor is it's > destructor (but it's constructor is). > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Andrew Clinton<andrew at sidefx.com> wrote: >> I got it working with this: >> >> int argc = 2; >> const char *argv[2] = {"myopt", "-time-passes"}; >> >> cl::ParseCommandLineOptions(argc, (char **)argv, "my optimizer"); >> >>...

> If you're interested in doing this, I'd suggest hacking up the backend to > not run register allocation, and represent all your "physical" registers > are virtual registers. This gives you an unlimited number. > Yes it would be ideal to use all virtual registers, but a glance at the code seemed to indicate the the use of physical registers, spilling, etc. was

...lid remote certificate. * starttls: Use STARTTLS command instead of doing SSL handshake immediately after connected. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks so much! :) -- Monika Janek Systems Administrator, Side Effects Software Toronto, Ontario Canada 416-504-9876 x207 www.sidefx.com

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Andrew Clinton <andrew at sidefx.com> wrote: > I actually submitted a patch to fix this very problem quite a while back, > but I don't think it was ever added to the baseline: > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20110711/124136.html > > I have also explained why it is important...

I actually submitted a patch to fix this very problem quite a while back, but I don't think it was ever added to the baseline: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20110711/124136.html I have also explained why it is important to avoid the creation of new loops in an optimizer that performs analysis on the looping structure. I now need to keep this patch updated

On 10/18/2012 01:26 PM, David Blaikie wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Andrew Clinton<andrew at sidefx.com> wrote: >> I actually submitted a patch to fix this very problem quite a while back, >> but I don't think it was ever added to the baseline: >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20110711/124136.html >> >> I have also expla...

Would it be possible to increase TargetRegisterInfo::FirstVirtualRegister to something quite a bit larger - such as 2^31? I'm working on a target where all SSA values need to be assigned physical registers, and the current limit of 16384 may limit the size of programs that I'm able to handle. 2^31 is a nice value since there are equal numbers of possible physical and virtual registers,

On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:11 PM, andrew at sidefx.com wrote: > Would it be possible to increase TargetRegisterInfo::FirstVirtualRegister > to something quite a bit larger - such as 2^31? I'm working on a target > where all SSA values need to be assigned physical registers, and the > current limit of 16384 may limit the size of pr...

On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:39 PM, andrew at sidefx.com wrote: > >> If you're interested in doing this, I'd suggest hacking up the backend to >> not run register allocation, and represent all your "physical" registers >> are virtual registers. This gives you an unlimited number. >> > > Yes it w...

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Andrew Clinton <andrew at sidefx.com> wrote: > I have a (non-entry) basic block that contains only PHI nodes and an > unconditional branch (that does not branch to itself).  Is it always > possible to merge this block with it's successor and produce a > semantically equivalent program? I don't think that...

2012/2/24 Xin Tong <xerox.time.tech at gmail.com>: > Hopefully you mean sometime in the evening on 29th. If this is the > case, count me in. Good point, I forgot to select a time :-) What about 19:00? > Thanks Cheers, Rafael

It would be fun to meet some other LLVM developers in TO, 7:00 on wed at beer bistro should work for me. Andrew On 02/24/2012 05:22 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > 2012/2/24 Xin Tong<xerox.time.tech at gmail.com>: >> Hopefully you mean sometime in the evening on 29th. If this is the >> case, count me in. > Good point, I forgot to select a time :-) > What about 19:00?

can we get a confirmation on who is coming tomorrow ? Thanks Xin 2012/2/24 Andrew Clinton <andrew at sidefx.com>: > It would be fun to meet some other LLVM developers in TO, 7:00 on wed at > beer bistro should work for me. > > Andrew > > > On 02/24/2012 05:22 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >> >> 2012/2/24 Xin Tong<xerox.time.tech at gmail.com>: >>> >>...

I noticed that in LLVM 3.0 the limit of 16K physical registers was removed, but it seems that this limit has returned in 3.1 with the use of uint16_t for register ids. Would it be possible to re-increase this storage size to uint32_t or to change this to a typedef so that I can patch it locally? See related thread "Increasing TargetRegisterInfo::FirstVirtualRegister" Andrew