search for: skippability

What if in the registration interface we had three options: skippable, not skippable, and run at OptLevel::None. We'd need some way to communicate the OptLevel::None to the pass, but that doesn't seem terrible. -Andy -----Original Message----- From: David Greene [mailto:dag at cray.com] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 7:01 AM To: Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> Cc:

On 10/01/2018 11:13 PM, David Greene wrote: > Philip Pfaffe <philip.pfaffe at gmail.com> writes: >> Sorry, but I strongly oppose to the road you're suggesting here. As I >> said before the Pass*Manager* is entirely the wrong place to handle >> OptNone, the absolutely the wrong design. It makes sense for function >> *only*, and immediately breaks down everywhere

Sorry, but I strongly oppose to the road you're suggesting here. As I said before the Pass*Manager* is entirely the wrong place to handle OptNone, the absolutely the wrong design. It makes sense for function *only*, and immediately breaks down everywhere else. Frankly, OptNone should take no role in this particular discussion, and I feel like so far it has because "We've always done

On 10/01/2018 08:39 PM, David Greene wrote: > "Kaylor, Andrew" <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> writes: > >> What if in the registration interface we had three options: skippable, >> not skippable, and run at OptLevel::None. > I kind of like this idea. If necessary, the pass could even query the > target (or some other entity) about what OptLevel::None means.

On 10/02/2018 01:17 AM, Kaylor, Andrew wrote: > Some of the issues we're talking about were also considered when I did the initial implementation of OptBisect. If anyone wants to look at the relevant reviews they can be found here: Thanks for sharing these, very useful! > https://reviews.llvm.org/D18576 (Abandoned first attempt) > https://reviews.llvm.org/D19172 (Committed second

...d to codegen stage in the future. 2. Do we want optnone support for new pass manager? I see OptBisect for each pass was first introduced by modifying optnone check. However new pass manager does not support it IIUC. We can either follow the legacy structure of skipFunction()/Module(), put skippability check in each single pass for new pass manager. Or since there is no optnone support, we now may also create label on each pass to determine it is skippable or not, and then do the check at pass manager level. 3. No region/basicblock/callgraphscc pass support for new pass manager? In legac...

On 09/28/2018 12:25 AM, Kaylor, Andrew wrote: > As I said, that’s really outside the scope of the current discussion > except to say that the relevant question is what component should make > the decision about whether or not a pass should be run. A planned way of implementation for new-pm's OptBisect is for instrumenting object to control the execution. Whenever instrumentation

jim holtman (jholtman at gmail.com) wrote: >It sounds like you want to use 'local' to create private variables: Hello, I hope I do not disturb your discussion very much writing in this thread but the topic sounded extremely familiar for me :) My only question is: Is there a good book or more general - any resources that can be used as a reader-friendly introduction to programming

I am trying to get TLS to work with Outlook 2007 and I've hit a small problem. Whenever I start it up, I get this error: "The server you are connected to is using a security certificate that cannot be verified. The target principal name is incorrect." (yes/no choice of trusting) I first tried with a wildcard cert (*.elisand.com), and then tried with mail.elisand.com - both certs

Hi Andrew, We absolutely need to be able to generate executable programs using > opt-bisect, so some mechanism for not skipping required passes is needed. > It might be nice to have a mode where no passes are skipped and the IR/MIR > is dumped when the bisect limit is reached, but I don't see that as a > requirement. > At this point it makes no sense to worry about the code

Greetings! As the generic Pass Instrumentation framework for new pass manager is finally *in*, I'm glad to start the discussion on implementation of -opt-bisect through that framework. As it has already been discovered while porting other features (namely, -time-passes) blindly copying the currently existing legacy implementation is most likely not a perfect way forward. Now is a chance

On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 23:11:05 -0400 Mark Foley via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 19:31:58 +0100 Rowland Penny wrote: > > Only Windows uses GPO's (as yet). GPO's operate on the registry and > > only Windows has the registry. > > I suspected that, but didn't know for sure. That's great! I'm not a > fan of GPOs. I

In case a repository of virt-builder references files (e.g. the index) that cannot be downloaded (network issues, 404, etc) then virt-builder errors out on this situation. This is not a nice situation, from an user POV. This series does some refactoring to allow to better handle downloading failures, and handle the failures gracefully in virt-builder. RFC because I'm not yet too convinced