search for: unbundled

...... I think you should turn the glue bit upside down, so it means "This instruction is glued to its predecessor" instead of "This instruction is glued to its successor. That way, the inner bundled instructions have the glue bit, while the outer bundle headers and unbundled instructions don't. That should make your iterator a lot simpler when you have mixed bundles and unbundled MIs. It simply skips MIs with the glue bit set: | ---------------- |--> | Bundle | (A MI with special opcode "Bundle")...

...to finalize. This is exactly my point - I have to unbundle everything to re-bundle it back in :) ...but this case is trivial and I am OK with it. What is more unclear to me is this. How do you use Bundle.insert(I, MI->removeFromBundle()) Where MI == Bundle.End? This happens if I want to add unbundled instruction to a bundle that immediately precedes it in the same BB. The moment you remove MI from BB iterators will not work properly... and if you do not remove it first, MBB.insert(I, MI); will assert with: lib/CodeGen/MachineBasicBlock.cpp:94: void llvm::ilist_traits<llvm::MachineInstr>:...

...I have to unbundle everything to re-bundle it > back in :) ...but this case is trivial and I am OK with it. What is more > unclear to me is this. > > How do you use Bundle.insert(I, MI->removeFromBundle()) > > Where MI == Bundle.End? > > This happens if I want to add unbundled instruction to a bundle that > immediately precedes it in the same BB. The moment you remove MI from BB > iterators will not work properly. Yes, that is a problem because MIBundleBuilder keeps an End iterator. What do you think, should we add a Bundle.moveIntoBundle() function? /jakob

Let me redirect the topic a bit. I've been considering unbundling gregmisc. The pro would be that people would find the component packages (i.e. gdata) more easily. The con is that the packages have a number of interdependencies, so you pretty much will need to get most of them anyway. As the latest gregmisc bundle contains a gregmisc package that is just a stub that depends on and loads

Let me redirect the topic a bit. I've been considering unbundling gregmisc. The pro would be that people would find the component packages (i.e. gdata) more easily. The con is that the packages have a number of interdependencies, so you pretty much will need to get most of them anyway. As the latest gregmisc bundle contains a gregmisc package that is just a stub that depends on and loads

On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 12:26 +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 00:07 +0100, Stefan G. Weichinger via samba > wrote: > > > > Am 2017-01-04 um 23:49 schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger via samba: > > > > > > > > > > > on my way to 4.5.3 now > > > > compiling samba-4.5.3 on gentoo *failed* right now > > > >

Jakob, > The intention was to identify code that may have been converted from > the old style a little too quickly. I wanted to avoid bugs from a > global s/setIsInsideBundle/bundleWithPred/g search and replace. This is a good intent. Maybe a bit temporal but sound nevertheless. > finalizeBundle is calling 'MIBundleBuilder Bundle(MBB, FirstMI, > LastMI)' which ought to

On Feb 4, 2013, at 8:59 AM, "Sergei Larin" <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Jakob, > >> The intention was to identify code that may have been converted from >> the old style a little too quickly. I wanted to avoid bugs from a >> global s/setIsInsideBundle/bundleWithPred/g search and replace. > > This is a good intent. Maybe a bit temporal but

On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:43 PM, "Sergei Larin" <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > I have a question about the following (four) asserts recently added in > bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc() (see below). What is the real danger > of reasserting a connection even if it already exist? The intention was to identify code that may have been converted from the old style a

Jakob, I have a question about the following (four) asserts recently added in bundleWithPred() and bundleWithSucc() (see below). What is the real danger of reasserting a connection even if it already exist? My problem with them happens when I try to call finalizeBundle() on an existing bundle to which I have added a new instruction. The goal - a new bundle header with liveness abbreviation, but

On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 10:45 +0100, Stefan G. Weichinger via samba wrote: > Am 2017-01-05 um 00:28 schrieb Andrew Bartlett: > > > > > > > > > In Debian we re-bundled heimdal.  Samba is only known to work and > > > is > > > only tested with the bundled copy.  The semi-private interfaces > > > we > > > use > > > with the

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:59:08AM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote: > We ship our own copy of it, so we do not need the external version. > (Also, the latest upstream version of ocaml-libvirt was already not > usable to build the test harness of v2v.) This is a significant step backwards from a Fedora packaging POV which expects maintainers to unbundle any 3rd party deps and use the external

2018-01-18 6:40 GMT+01:00 Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org>: > Great, I think that that would be a fine approach: you can have the cmake logic detect which version of isl is installed and fail if it is the wrong version. This would address my concern. > The motivation explained in the original email seemed to hinge around the fact that Polly’s unit tests depend on accidental

...ch obviously changes the liveness update process. My question, do we need another attribute along with isImplicit and isEarlyClobber etc. to designate a conditional def? Furthermore, depending on architectural details we well might have a conditional use as well... and what about the individual (unbundled) def/use? Should this: %R0<def> = LDriuh_cdnNotPt %P0<kill,internal>, %R16, 0; ...become this: %R0<def-cond> = LDriuh_cdnNotPt %P0<kill,internal>, %R16, 0; or even: %R0<def-cond> = LDriuh_cdnNotPt %P0<kill,internal>, %R16<use-cond>, 0; So, if I am m...

...is 9. I have not tried it yet, but I though some might be interested. The patch is: (this is available for free from sunsolve) Patch-ID# 112438-01 Keywords: secuity random number generator PRNG Synopsis: SunOS 5.8: /kernel/drv/random patch Date: Mar/28/2002 Solaris Release: 8 SunOS Release: 5.8 Unbundled Product: Unbundled Release: Xref: Topic: SunOS 5.8: /kernel/drv/random patch *********************************************************** NOTE: This patch may contain one or more OEM-specific platform ports. See the appropriate OEM_NOTES file within the patch for information specific...

Hi I read that bundles are to be deprecated in 2.10. The BACCO bundle contains three packages (emulator, calibrator, approximator) which I am happy to unbundle. But the 'BACCO' moniker has some considerable cachet for me in terms of recognizability (eg with grant-giving bodies), as it has become an umbrella term for a whole bunch of related statistical functionality of which the three

> On Jan 18, 2018, at 6:02 AM, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: > > 2018-01-18 6:40 GMT+01:00 Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org>: >> Great, I think that that would be a fine approach: you can have the cmake logic detect which version of isl is installed and fail if it is the wrong version. This would address my concern. > >> The motivation

...le > > it back in :) ...but this case is trivial and I am OK with it. What > is > > more unclear to me is this. > > > > How do you use Bundle.insert(I, MI->removeFromBundle()) > > > > Where MI == Bundle.End? > > > > This happens if I want to add unbundled instruction to a bundle that > > immediately precedes it in the same BB. The moment you remove MI from > > BB iterators will not work properly. > > Yes, that is a problem because MIBundleBuilder keeps an End iterator. > > What do you think, should we add a Bundle.moveIntoB...

Related to http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2016-November/290384.html, at the moment I'm passing one variable via DIAL. Now I'd like to pass a whole bunch, and my idea was to rather than having a great string of b(synctest3b^setVar^1(something)^2(more things)^3(etc)) and then get them with ARG1..ARGn etc, I could bundle the whole lot into a HASH and then unbundle them at

Hi All, Asterisk 1.4.12 CentOS 5 My ISP account includes nearly 500 minutes of VOIP calls per month but the service is expensive for unbundled minutes. So I'm trying to find a way to keep an accumulated total of calls made through that trunk so that I can automatically switch to a lower-cost provider when my bundled minutes are used. The plan is to store the accumulated time in AstDB and reset this with a cron job at the beginning of...