search for: unaddressible

On 9/28/2016 7:30 PM, Quentin Colombet wrote: > Out of curiosity, could describe why this is useful to have such precision in the liveness tracking? RDF is meant to allow optimizations across the whole function. As a result, registers may change between basic blocks, and there is code to recalculate it. Accuracy is required to avoid unnecessary block live-ins. For example, calculate live-ins

On 9/28/2016 2:59 PM, Quentin Colombet wrote: > The cases where that it could make sense to use unaddressable register units are: > > 2. If we want to track precise liveness for physical registers > > #2 is not a problem IMO since most of our work with liveness happens on unallocated code. This is what I'm working on (RDF). I generate a data-flow graph for physical registers,

On 9/28/2016 1:20 PM, Quentin Colombet wrote: > >> On Sep 28, 2016, at 10:52 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On X86, the registers AX, EAX and RAX all share the exact same register units. In terms of units, there is no difference between these registers. This makes register units insufficient to track liveness, since live AX

On X86, the registers AX, EAX and RAX all share the exact same register units. In terms of units, there is no difference between these registers. This makes register units insufficient to track liveness, since live AX does not imply live EAX. Would it make sense to have register units (and lane masks) for the parts of registers that are not individually addressable? -Krzysztof -- Qualcomm

Hi, We all know most people are reporting that Amazon hasn't been helpful at all. A few people say they've received answers, but most are getting smoke screen PR BS. You can vote this up on Slashdot, send the message: SIP Attacks From Amazon EC2 Going Unaddressed: http://bit.ly/bOkNNx Send this message out to Amazon, I am positive that once it reaches the right person, they will do the

Hi! I'm working on ASan option that uses llvm.lifetime intrinsics to detect use-after-scope bugs. In short, the idea is to insert calls into ASan runtime that would mark the memory as "addressable" or "unaddressable". I see the following problem with the following "trivial" basic block: for.body.lr.ph.i: ; preds = %for.body.i310

In the following text, I am about to use terms such as "inaccurate". I don't mean to question what some code does, but rather to compare the expressions against what I think is a more accurate one, in theory. I mean no disrespect, and I am not saying that developers are doing the wrong thing. In addition, of course I could be wrong (or type in incorrectly, or some formatting

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox.com> There is no reason for a user to select this or not directly - it should be selected by drivers that are going to use the feature, similar to how CONFIG_HMM_MIRROR works. Currently all drivers provide a feature kconfig that will disable use of DEVICE_PRIVATE in that driver, allowing users to avoid enabling this if they don't want the

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox.com> There is no reason for a user to select this or not directly - it should be selected by drivers that are going to use the feature, similar to how CONFIG_HMM_MIRROR works. Currently all drivers provide a feature kconfig that will disable use of DEVICE_PRIVATE in that driver, allowing users to avoid enabling this if they don't want the

...ialised memory * Reading/writing memory after it has been free'd * Reading/writing off the end of malloc'd blocks * Reading/writing inappropriate areas on the stack * Memory leaks -- where pointers to malloc'd blocks are lost forever * Passing of uninitialised and/or unaddressible memory to system calls * Mismatched use of malloc/new/new [] vs free/delete/delete [] * Some misuses of the POSIX pthreads API -- Florin Andrei "Some times are fuzzier than others." - Dan Farmer & Wietse Venema

With the traditional qemu tree fixed to not use PROT_WRITE anymore in the mmap() call for this region, and with the upstream qemu tree not being capable of handling passthrough, yet, there''s no need to treat Dom specially here anymore. This continues to leave unaddressed the case where PV guests map the MSI-X table page(s) before setting up the first MSI-X interrupt (see the original c/s

Relatedly, Phabricator doesn't stop you continuing a comment chain for reasons I have yet to follow, which Github sometimes does. Some others: 1) I believe Github also doesn't have an easy way to respond to multiple comments simultaneously, if you are not in "review" mode, (which is always the case if you are replying to out-of-line comments). 2) Typically in our Phabricator,

On 18/10/2017 11:40 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote: > On 18 Oct 2017, at 6.34, Reuben Farrelly <reuben-dovecot at reub.net> wrote: >> >> I haven't been tracking dovecot-2.3 until now, but I've just given it a quick run, and there are a few things that may need some attention. >> >> /usr/include/features.h:376:4: warning: #warning _FORTIFY_SOURCE requires compiling

This past weekend, but holiday was ruined due to a log device "replacement" gone awry. I posted all about it here: http://jmlittle.blogspot.com/2008/05/problem-with-slogs-how-i-lost.html In a nutshell, an resilver of a single log device with itself, due to the fact one can''t remove a log device from a pool once defined, cause ZFS to fully resilver but then attach the log

This looks like a bug in simplifycfg. We should preserve lifetime intrinsics due to the reasons I described. The code in //lib/Transforms/Utils/Local.cpp: if (Succ->getSinglePredecessor()) { // BB is the only predecessor of Succ, so Succ will end up with exactly // the same predecessors BB had. // Copy over any phi, debug or lifetime instruction.

There isn't really much value add in the hmm_devmem_add wrapper. Just factor out a little helper to find the resource, and otherwise let the driver implement the dev_pagemap_ops directly. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> --- Documentation/vm/hmm.rst | 26 -------- include/linux/hmm.h | 129 --------------------------------------- mm/hmm.c | 115

On 19 August 2016 at 19:35, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > I think you misunderstood what I meant here. Whether "moving to git" > will affect my workflow depends very much on "how we're moving to > git". That's exactly what I understood. :) > For example, if we do a monorepo, I may now need to lay code out > differently on my

Op 20-10-2017 om 4:23 schreef Reuben Farrelly: > On 18/10/2017 11:40 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote: >> On 18 Oct 2017, at 6.34, Reuben Farrelly <reuben-dovecot at reub.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> I haven't been tracking dovecot-2.3 until now, but I've just given >>> it a quick run, and there are a few things that may need some >>> attention.

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 01:48, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I am in favor of having a flang front end in tree. I have concerns about the design of flang versus other front ends, the lack of llvm based library use, and a number of other things that I tried to enumerate in previous emails. I don't know if anything has changed and the responses I got

Hi Ady, Your insightful post prompted me to to a little bit more digging as to how the Ridgecrop algorithm computed its FAT size, with the result of my investigations presented below. NB: For those who don't want to go through this whole part, there's a TL;DR near the end. For reference, the computation of the FAT size all done in the GetFATSizeSectors(), the code of which is at [1]