search for: upkeeps

I’ve been playing around with optimizing performance various passes and noticed something about ADCE: it keeps an Alive set that requires a lot of upkeep time-wise, but if each instruction had a /single bit/ of side data (to represent liveness, solely within the pass), the set wouldn’t be needed. I tested this out and observed a ~1/3 reduction in time in ADCE: 1454ms to 982ms according to a

Dear All, Thanks for taking the time to read this. I have been presented with a massive task. I'm not an asterisk expert, but I do know my way around a linux server and infrastructure, and I know when things are not done correctly. A large number of minutes are routed every month, (1m+) and I wish to do this in the most efficient way possible. I've been presented with three linux

cc Paul / MyDeveloperDay De : llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> De la part de David Blaikie via llvm-dev Envoyé : April 8, 2020 10:21 PM À : Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann <teemperor at gmail.com>; Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> Cc : llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Objet : Re: [llvm-dev] Outdated Phabricator version on reviews.llvm.org breaks Google

> On Sep 14, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > What is the contract between passes for the marker bit? I.e. do passes need to "clean up" the marker bit to a predetermined value after they run? (or they need to assume that it might be dirty? (like I think you do below)) Good questions, and to add to this, what happens if we

Hi folks, phabricator maintenance is a topic that has been lying dormant for a while now. That subsequently creates a non-optimal user experience. For me personally, given that github provides a secure PR infrastructure, the additional effort required to keep Phab going is not an investment I'm personally willing to make. I understand that there are unique selling points for Phab in its UI

I've always wondered how the in-line sizes of SmallVector, SmallString, etc. that we use in LLVM and Clang hold up against the actual sizes of the containers at run-time. To figure this out, I added a destructor to each such class, that would dump the container's final size into a table that got printed at exit. I also added a special field, __clang_ObjectLocation, to each such class and

Hi all, I’m using my Google account to log into my Phabricator account on reviews.llvm.org . Since today that no longer works as I don’t seem to get any reply from reviews.llvm.org when I’m logged into my account. It tried logging out which fixes the issue of reviews.llvm.org not loading, but when I try to login I just get the following error: > Expected to retrieve an "account"

Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay tuned for updates! On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:45 PM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > -Chris' outdated email, +Chris' correct email :) > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:01 PM Manuel Klimek <klimek at

I have tried searching google (found page 1 only in the cache), howtoforge.com, linuxhelp.net (older postfix document), centos forums, hughesjr forum and centos irc channel. I was pointed to linuxhelp.net and at first thought that the howto in the forums there was it. Unfortunately, I only glanced at the title when I bookmarked it and when I got back home later that evening and actuallty

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of >> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay >> tuned for

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, 18:55 Hubert Tong, <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of >> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay >> tuned for updates!

Web Systems Administrator, Full-Time Full Time Position - Immediate to March 2006 start ===================== DigitalWork, a web application development company based in downtown Chicago, is seeking a technically astute, down-to-earth individual with multi-platform server administration experience. We're a small shop where each team member has significant input and influence. We have a

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4979 Summary: readdir() failure results in remote deletes Product: rsync Version: 3.0.0 Platform: PPC OS/Version: Mac OS X Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org ReportedBy: joe07734@gmail.com

I am about 95% done setting up our new lab samba server (man does it feel great to be free of Windows Server!). But I have hit a bit of a snag when it comes to adding domain/unix groups to the local XP groups (e.g. Power Users and Debugger Users). I have done some searching on Google - there are lots of howtos but they all seem to involve LDAP. I also fiddled with the net groupmap command in Linux

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:33 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:04 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <keithbsmiley at gmail.com> wrote: > FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in the past > few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over resolving / > unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen about > GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated. > To be clear: this

I would assume that it’s just considered to be garbage. I feel like any sort of per-pass side data like this should come with absolute minimal contracts, to avoid introducing any more inter-pass complexity. —escha > On Sep 14, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > What is the contract between passes for the marker bit? I.e. do passes need to

Hello everyone, I''ve been working on an internal best practices document that also tackled giving proper terms to things that were at the time uncoined. But looks like we have a bit of a merge problem as other terms have been floating around that seem to conflict with some terms we''ve been using internally at my organization. I''m hoping we can discuss and

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the issues with rebasing are very real. Unless you only use merge commits you are going to have a very bad time Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to

There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab. You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request by definition compares your working copy against master. This is not very compatible with LLVMs approach to incremental development. For example, if you ask someone to break a large patch into 5 smaller patches, with Phab this is very easy because you can upload the diff