search for: situational

Hello, Philipp Becker and me, Vaidas Gasiunas, are developers at SAP and part of a team developing a C-like domain-specific language for the SAP HANA in-memory database. We use LLVM as a backend to translate our language to native code, primarily on x86-64 platforms. Our programs are created dynamically, compiled and optimized in a running database. As a result of that we have special

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Philipp Becker" <philipp.becker at sap.com> > To: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>, "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 6:55:59 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Making LLVM safer in out-of-memory situations > > Hi Philip, > > Thanks for the

Hi Philip, Thanks for the positive response from all of you! > One question: How are you handling EOM? Error return? Custom region allocator? When running into an Out-of-memory situation we're currently only doing an error return, i.e. the compilation fails, but does so without crashing the process in which the compilation/jitting occurs. It is ok for us if llvm returns with a

On 12/12/13 4:25 AM, Gasiunas, Vaidas wrote: > Hello, > > Philipp Becker and me, Vaidas Gasiunas, are developers at SAP and part of a team developing a C-like domain-specific language for the SAP HANA in-memory database. We use LLVM as a backend to translate our language to native code, primarily on x86-64 platforms. Our programs are created dynamically, compiled and optimized in a

Hi, Yes I aware to the NAT possibility, But let's assume that this is the issue, there is no reason that 30 listeners >From the same country will connect and disconnect at the same time range... I'm pretty sure that its individual listener/IP. I deleted the Access log files, but in the next time that I will catch similar situation again, I will complete the investigation. Nobody from

Hi all, I've recently been writing functions which may deal with very large arrays. And I hope to use *apply functions in the program so that the code may look nicer and the performance may be better in the following two situations. The first situation is: I'm having an array A with dim(A)==c(m,n,p). And I want to apply a function F to a group of elements in A like: 1) F is applied to

Hi Philip, > If I'm reading you correctly, you are relying on exception propagation > and handler (destructors for local objects) execution. You have chosen > not to add extra exception logic to LLVM itself, but are relying on the > correctness of exception propagation within the code. (The last two > sentances are intended to be a restatement of what your message said.

Hi Hal, > Does this mean that you're using C++ exception handling to manage the cleanup? No, not really. From the place where we're calling into llvm we are catching all exceptions that may occur during compilation, but normally we do not add any additional catch clauses into the llvm source itself. We mainly rely on correct stack unwinding by destructors in llvm when an exception is

On Dec 12, 2013, at 04:25 , Gasiunas, Vaidas <vaidas.gasiunas at sap.com> wrote: > To address these requirements we have developed a set of patches improving performance and malfunction safety of certain compiler passes and would be interested in contributing them at some point. Before proposing concrete changes, we would like to know what the general interest is with respect to making

Dear R-users, I've been reading a bunch of things on linear models but cannot quite find a clear answer. How can one determine whether a linear model is significant or not? For background info, I am modelling the response of topographic slope to the distance of a catchment's outlet. Some guys have shown that if there is a significant fit to a linear model, one can deduce the dynamic

I didn't pick up the data from the access file, just from the error file... About players, I can't control what the "radio index" sites are doing with my icecast streaming address, But as far as I know from my experience, the players when they getting "crazy" causing between 3-5 multiple connections for less than a 2 minutes. Not a big issue. The situation that

My Asterisk server is behind a NAT and I have set: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- externhost="my.server.address" externrefresh=180 localnet=192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0 localnet=10.0.0.0/255.0.0.0 localnet=172.16.0.0/12 nat=yes --------------------------------------------------------------------------- in [general] section of sip.conf. I can

Hi everyone, The MachineLICM pass has a heuristic such that, even in low-register-pressure situations, it will refuse to hoist "cheap" instructions out of loops. By default, when an itinerary is available, this means that all of the defined operands are available in at most 1 cycle. ARM overrides this, and provides this more-customized definition: bool ARMBaseInstrInfo::

Hi everybody. I'm in a discussion and someone ask me in which situation we should use the zapata.conf usecallerid set to no. I didn't have the answer. I understand what the usecallerid keyword does but I'm talking about a actual situation that is interesting to to avoid receiving the caller id. Thanks in advance! -- -------------------------------------------- Paulo Garcia Pika

I have some specs that involve the use of eval and class definitions to test code generation. I want to always start with a clean slate so none of my tests fail or succeed incorrectly due to artifacts left over from previous specs. Example of my situation Spec 1 defines class Fish class Cod < Fish Spec 2 defines class Animal class Cod < Animal In this situation the

Samba: Version 2.2.10 Kernel: 2.4.31 There is share on the server (for DBASE app) with following config: comment = zwierzaki 2.5.04N path = /pub/zwierz/ force user = smbguest read only = No guest only = Yes guest ok = Yes dos filetime resolution = Yes I have found weird situation: - not every file in shared dir is visible under windows but

> On Sep 7, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 04:30:01PM -0700, Eugene Zelenko via llvm-dev wrote: >> What should be used for type declarations: typedef or using? typedef >> is there because of historical reasons, but LLVM code based is C++11 >> now. >> >> LLVM Coding

Dear NUT users, The relationship with Eaton was in need of clarification for a long time, which happened over the past weeks.This is now officially noted on the NUT side, through moving Eaton from the "Main supporter" to "Supporting UPS manufacturer", rewording the content and putting a big warning [1]. Quoting these main changes: "Eaton, has been the main NUT supporter

If anyone is running this configuration, I have some questions for you about Page83 data errors. This message posted from opensolaris.org

On 12/13/13 6:47 AM, Becker, Philipp wrote: > Hi Hal, > >> Does this mean that you're using C++ exception handling to manage the cleanup? > No, not really. From the place where we're calling into llvm we are catching all exceptions that may occur during compilation, but normally we do not add any additional catch clauses into the llvm source itself. We mainly rely on correct