search for: tihnk

...haven't thought about them because I haven't designed such an interface. If I had, I would just contribute it. I do think that this is the correct design direction though, as I don't think that there is one unified way to represent diagnostics in the backend, or if there is I don't tihnk we have any idea what it looks like. Inline assembly is more of a special case than anything else. I don't really see why the right path forward is to design a generic framework around what was originally built for its specific purpose. If anything, I think the design you are pursuing is stri...

...ck when >> analyses call back into it in order to get other analyses. >> > > I would really rather avoid this, as currently the analysis manager's > logic here is very simple, and in many cases we only need the analyses to > *compute* our result, not to embed it. I'm tihnking of stuff like > Dominators is used to build LoopInfo, but there isn't a stale handle there. > > > > There is another aspect of course in that if something is preserving > LoopInfo, it really should be preserving Dominators too... > -------------- next part --------------...

...haven't thought about them because I haven't designed such an interface. If I had, I would just contribute it. I do think that this is the correct design direction though, as I don't think that there is one unified way to represent diagnostics in the backend, or if there is I don't tihnk we have any idea what it looks like. > > Inline assembly is more of a special case than anything else. I don't really see why the right path forward is to design a generic framework around what was originally built for its specific purpose. > > If anything, I think the design you...

I have just rebuilt my * box back to last weeks 06-20 CVS build beacuse after getting the latest I could not hear ANY voice prompts. I have a T1 card and a dual proc box that has been running just fine up till this weekend. I tihnk some of the format changes affected my install. Jun 27 16:12:38 DEBUG[262161]: File chan_sip.c, Line 612 (create_addr): Setting NAT on RTP to 0 Jun 27 16:12:38 DEBUG[262161]: File chan_sip.c, Line 523 (__sip_ack): Stopping retransmission on '7ceb145123fa12fc73729d134d2820d8@155.97.244.130'...

With D21921 and a couple other pending patches, we now have the full LTO pipeline converted to the new PM. I was trying it out on test-suite and SPEC2006. Yay! This email is about one issue that I ran into testing the pipeline on test-suite. The issue arose in the wild as an interaction between lcssa and gvn. But the issue is extremely general. What happened is that BasicAA uses

...it in order to get other analyses. >>>> >>> >>> I would really rather avoid this, as currently the analysis manager's >>> logic here is very simple, and in many cases we only need the analyses to >>> *compute* our result, not to embed it. I'm tihnking of stuff like >>> Dominators is used to build LoopInfo, but there isn't a stale handle there. >>> >>> >>> >>> There is another aspect of course in that if something is preserving >>> LoopInfo, it really should be preserving Dominators too...

On 2/28/20 12:19 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Hi Nicholas, > > You might want to check out MLIR: its pass manager is already automatically and implicitly multithreaded. > > -Chris Chris, I was aware that LLVM was moving to MLIR at some point due to this. I've curious as to how MLIR deals with IPO as that's the problem I was running into. Even if you have pipelines what

...> I would really rather avoid this, as currently the analysis > > > > > manager's > > > > > logic here is very simple, and in many cases we only need the > > > > > analyses to *compute* our result, not to embed it. I'm > > > > > tihnking > > > > > of > > > > > stuff like Dominators is used to build LoopInfo, but there > > > > > isn't > > > > > a > > > > > stale handle there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &g...

...it in order to get other analyses. >>>> >>> >>> I would really rather avoid this, as currently the analysis manager's >>> logic here is very simple, and in many cases we only need the analyses to >>> *compute* our result, not to embed it. I'm tihnking of stuff like >>> Dominators is used to build LoopInfo, but there isn't a stale handle there. >>> >>> >>> >>> There is another aspect of course in that if something is preserving >>> LoopInfo, it really should be preserving Dominators too...

...to drm fbdev helpers") >> converted nouveau to generic fbdev emulation. Also remove the internal >> implementation from the driver. No functional changes. > > Looking at 4a16dd9d18a0, it appears to have removed this file already. > I guess it somehow got re-added? OK, I tihnk I found it in the merge of drm-misc-next-2022-11-10-1 into drm-next. See https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm/commit/?id=4e291f2f5853 There was a conflict between the removal and my rework of the some fbdev helpers. Do we use Fixes tags with merge commits? Best regards Thomas > > A...

I'm a neewbie in Linux, so please bear with me. I have a school assignment to make communication between 10 SIP softphones (kphone). So far I got trouble installing Asterisk. The information in asterisk web site seems to be a bit outdated because it's mentioned only kernel 2.4. Since Mandrake cooker (10.2beta3) witch I'm using is using kernel 2.6.10, I wander if I have a chance to

...them helping out on the typeless pointer work - it's totally parallelizable/shardable/shareable work & the project as a whole seemed to agree it was the right direction. Why not just get it done? The Pass Manager work is a bit different & harder to share at certain points (I don't tihnk there's ever been a point at which someone could ask me "what can I do to help with the typeless pointer work" I couldn't've given some pretty large areas I wasn't anywhere near touching that they could've gotten their teeth into) - I think it's reaching the point...

...typeless pointer work - it's > totally parallelizable/shardable/shareable work & the project as a whole > seemed to agree it was the right direction. Why not just get it done? > > The Pass Manager work is a bit different & harder to share at certain > points (I don't tihnk there's ever been a point at which someone could ask > me "what can I do to help with the typeless pointer work" I couldn't've > given some pretty large areas I wasn't anywhere near touching that they > could've gotten their teeth into) - I think it's reac...

...r work - it's totally parallelizable/shardable/shareable > work & the project as a whole seemed to agree it was the right > direction. Why not just get it done? > > The Pass Manager work is a bit different & harder to share at > certain points (I don't tihnk there's ever been a point at which > someone could ask me "what can I do to help with the typeless > pointer work" I couldn't've given some pretty large areas I wasn't > anywhere near touching that they could've gotten their teeth into) > -...

...able/shardable/shareable work & the project as a >> whole seemed to agree it was the right direction. Why not >> just get it done? >> >> The Pass Manager work is a bit different & harder to share at >> certain points (I don't tihnk there's ever been a point at >> which someone could ask me "what can I do to help with the >> typeless pointer work" I couldn't've given some pretty large >> areas I wasn't anywhere near touching that they could've >>...

Hi, As no new suggestions came in, I would like to share my plans to move forward. — Feedbacks are very welcome! -- Like I summed up in my previous email (see below), there are two orthogonal approaches to this problem. I have chosen the second one (extend the reporting already used for inline asm). Regarding the first approach (front-end querying the back-end to build up diagnostic), it needs

I''ve put together two patches. The first introduces a new dom0_op, set_max_vcpus, which with an associated variable and a check in the VCPUOP handler fixes [1]bug 288. Also included is a new VCPUOP, VCPUOP_create, which handles all of the vcpu creation tasks and leaves initialization and unpausing to VCPUOP_initialize. The separation allows for build-time allocation of vcpus which

Hi Everyone, Numerous people have been bringing up challenges with consensus driven decision making in the LLVM community. After considering this and seeing the frustrations it is causing many people, I think we should make a formal process change to help improve decision making going forward. Here is the outline of the draft proposal

Hi, Thanks all for the insight comments. Let me sum up at a high level what proposals we actually have (sorry if I misinterpreted or missed something, do not hesitate to correct me): 1. Make LLVM defines some APIs that exposes some internal information so that a front-end can use them to build-up some diagnostics. 2. Make LLVM builds up a diagnostic and let a front-end maps this diagnostic to

On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:06 AM Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann at suse.de> wrote: > > Commit 4a16dd9d18a0 ("drm/nouveau/kms: switch to drm fbdev helpers") > converted nouveau to generic fbdev emulation. Also remove the internal > implementation from the driver. No functional changes. Looking at 4a16dd9d18a0, it appears to have removed this file already. I guess it