search for: smooshed

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, David Greene<dag at cray.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 15 July 2009 15:43, Török Edwin wrote: > >> How about starting simple, and just auto-tagging builds that work? >> Could be done per OS/arch, and one global tag when all buildbots pass. > > We've talked about this before and I've been working on setting up > such a system.

2009/7/16 Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> > I plan to check my buildbot configuration "stuff" into the > llvm-project repository soon. I have to refactor things a bit to > support use by other people, but currently I have configurations for > llvm, clang, and llvm-gcc in various target / self-hosting > permutations. I also have a regular buildbot driver

Hi All, I am done with my first pass over the release notes, you can see them in mainline here: http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html In addition to the inevitable typos and other things that need to be cleaned up, there are several todo's for specific people: 1. All: please let me know if there is something missing that I forgot. 2. Daniel, please update the clang section [DANIEL]. 3.

...lab="Freq",xlab="Year",layout=c(1,2)) plot(tp1,split=c(1,1,1,2)); plot(tp2,split=c(1,2,1,2),newpage=FALSE) ...I've managed to get a graphic that looks like two unrelated images on one screen: one image with the plot without taking Factor into account; and the other image, a smooshed lattice plot consisting of n plots in one column with n rows. The axis are not aligned and scaled differently (in the second image the individual plots are half the height of in the first image). How can I fix this? It would be nice to create a graphic with all of the plots stacked on top of each...

On Wednesday 15 July 2009 15:43, Török Edwin wrote: > How about starting simple, and just auto-tagging builds that work? > Could be done per OS/arch, and one global tag when all buildbots pass. We've talked about this before and I've been working on setting up such a system. Unfortunately, I can't figure out why my buildbots fail to configure llvm-gcc. Is there a link to the

...o be distinct? David told me the following and encouraged me to ask in the upstream: > May be historical at this point, I'm not quite sure. (I remember there being some complicated issues around distinctness of nodes when it came to inlining that could cause two inlined functions to end up smooshed together and appear as one inlined function - but I think that was about the distinctness of the debugloc itself, not of the function). > > Hmm, maybe it's from the days when DISubprogram ownership was inverted - DISubprograms used to be owned by the DICompileUnit and the DISubprogram wou...

Hello, Erwin > If you are interested, I think it is best to start with Bullet 2.75. > If it turns out that LLVM requires some modifications (due to current C++ > limitations), > we can modify Bullet and go for an uncoming release such as Bullet 2.76 > (planned around January 2010). I added bullet to LLVM testsuite. Basically I had to flatten source directories since this is a

Hi Anton, Thanks a lot for offering help. Bullet uses basic linear algebra with 4-way vectors, quaternion and matrices. Although most of this is plain portable C++ perhaps LLVM can auto-vectorize some of this? There is a little bit of hand optimized x86 SSE code. This is only enabled on 32bit Windows and Mac OSX Intel builds. >> Should I just use the 2.75 release? If you are interested,

There''s a good article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4616700.stm that says, in a nutshell, that people form their impression of a Web site in 50 milliseconds. With an 80K download for prototype, that leads me to ask: "how can page sizes be trimmed and still use cool features"? I recognize that browsers may feel free to download these scripts asynchronously, but

On 2009-07-15 23:24, Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Jul 15, 2009, at 11:52 AMPDT, Stuart Hastings wrote: > > >> We've had a lot of churn in all the trunks (llvm, llvm-gcc, clang) >> recently, and the testing buildbots have been failing repeatedly. >> >> I spoke with Chris this AM, and he suggested we have a "stabilization >> day." Please avoid