search for: strawful

I have always been an advocate for Broadvoice. Their service although is a little shoty at times has been an extremely cheap service that works with Asterisk. 19.99 a month for unlimited (Some say now really unlimited but I average 3500 minutes a month so pretty fine for me) calling and to several different countries. But I am on my last straw with them. The latest is somehow my primary and

Referring to the log messages from my previous mail… I confused myself (and probably others) by reading the “Adding MemMgr 0x55555959f440“ message as “Registering MemMgr 0x55555959f440”. Thus the address mismatch made no sense. How could we be registering a `MemMgr` address/key that does not match once we arrive in `notifyObjectLoaded` method? Answer: Because the registrations is NOT coming

There seems to be a lot of interest recently in LTO. How do you see the situation of splitting the IR passes between per-TU processing and multi-TU ("link time") processing? -- Sean Silva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130717/f5310a6e/attachment.html>

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > Out of curiosity, has anyone tried to optimize the pass ordering in some > (quasi-)automated way? Naively, a genetic algorithm seems like a perfect > fit for this. > This is the closest I've seen: http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/evolving-faster-haskell-programs-now-with-llvm/ However, it

I personally strong abhor this kind of thing:-) I guess I should be more open-minded. For pre-ipo phase, some passes should not invoke, say, any loop nest-opt, loop version, aggressive loop unrolling, vectorization, aggressive inling. The reasons are they will hinder the downstream optimizers if they kick in early. > Out of curiosity, has anyone tried to optimize the pass ordering in some

On Jul 31, 2013, at 6:53 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 7/30/2013 11:44 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >> The canonical form should be that loop invariants are hoisted. > > The canonical form should not depend on the knowledge as to what is invariant and what isn't. It has more to do with preserving certain "common"

>> I'm talking about perfect loop nests, as in the classical fortran loop >> transformation sense. > > Most nest optimizations only apply to perfect nests. Each such > optimization could try to "fix" the nest for its own purposes, but it > would be a lot of duplicated effort. If each L.N.O pass have to fix by itself, I would say this LNO component is

On 7/31/2013 6:30 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote: > > I can see us following Andrews > suggestion to disable LICM in case a LNO is run and having the LNO > schedule an additional set of cleanup passes later on. The way I was thinking about it is that LICM could be optionally added to the preparation steps, something like requiring loop-closed SSA form for certain transformations. -K --

Hi Adam, Calls to the listeners should be protected by the RTDyldLayerMutex. Could you apply the attached patch and share the debugging output from one of the failing runs? Regards, Lang. On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:00 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > +Lang > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 4:44 PM Straw, Adam D via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

On 7/30/2013 11:44 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > The canonical form should be that loop invariants are hoisted. The canonical form should not depend on the knowledge as to what is invariant and what isn't. It has more to do with preserving certain "common" properties of a loop, such as header, preheader, latch branch, etc. > Optimizations should not depend on perfect

On 7/16/2013 11:38 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > Since introducing the new TargetTransformInfo analysis, there has been some confusion over the role of target heuristics in IR passes. A few patches have led to interesting discussions. > > To centralize the discussion, until we get some documentation and better APIs in place, let me throw out an oversimplified Straw Man for a new pass pipline.

On 7/31/2013 12:20 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jul 31, 2013, at 6:53 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek > <kparzysz at codeaurora.org <mailto:kparzysz at codeaurora.org>> wrote: >> On 7/30/2013 11:44 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> >>> The canonical form should be that loop invariants are hoisted. >> >> The canonical form should not depend on the knowledge

On 7/31/13 4:47 PM, Shuxin Yang wrote: > > On 7/31/13 4:30 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 07/30/2013 09:44 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> >>> On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The pro for running LICM early is that it may move big redundant >>>> stuff out of loop

On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > The pro for running LICM early is that it may move big redundant stuff out of loop nest. You never know > how big it is. In case you are lucky , you can move lot of stuff out of > loop, the loop may become much smaller and hence enable lots of downstream optimizations. This sound > to be a big win

----- Original Message ----- > > On Jul 27, 2013, at 5:47 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, Sean: > > > > I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making > > a *BIG* change > > to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor > > change to > >

On 7/31/13 4:30 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 07/30/2013 09:44 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >> On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The pro for running LICM early is that it may move big redundant >>> stuff out of loop nest. You never know >>> how big it is. In case you are lucky , you can move

Hi all, Attention: Lang Hames I am developing the nGraph MLIR<https://github.com/NervanaSystems/ngraph/tree/master/src/contrib/mlir> implementation and hitting the following assert while running nGraph unit tests: assert(ObjectBufferMap.find(K) == ObjectBufferMap.end() && "Second attempt to perform debug registration."); Here is a

Since introducing the new TargetTransformInfo analysis, there has been some confusion over the role of target heuristics in IR passes. A few patches have led to interesting discussions. To centralize the discussion, until we get some documentation and better APIs in place, let me throw out an oversimplified Straw Man for a new pass pipline. It serves two purposes: (1) an overdue reorganization of

Everyone, I'm at the last straw. For at least 5 to 6 months I have tried to get Samba 2.0.6 and Samba 2.0.7 to interoperate with Windows 98, with only partial success. Whenever a Windows machine does an SMB query of the master browser on my network, it takes an abysmally long time to respond. Whenever a Windows machine attempts to print, it becomes unstable and starts crashing. I'm

On 7/30/13 7:35 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek wrote: > On 7/29/2013 6:28 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >> >> You mean that LICM and Unswitching should be left for later? For the >> purpose of exposing scalar optimizations, I'm not sure I agree with >> that but I'd be interested in examples. > > Optimizations like LICM, and unswitching can potentially damage >