search for: upthread

...fix them (the right way!) > > one at a time. For example, it seems that the thread agrees that the > > overall design of constants are a problem: let's talk about > > (incrementally!) moving constants to the right architecture. There > > are good suggestions about this upthread. > > I'm not sure why you think anyone so far suggested anything to "fix it > all" or to do it "not-incrementally". For example, I think we are > talking about the design of constants and how it can be incrementally > improved (for different purposes). I also...

...tead, let’s break down the problems and fix them (the right way!) one at a time. For example, it seems that the thread agrees that the overall design of constants are a problem: let's talk about (incrementally!) moving constants to the right architecture. There are good suggestions about this upthread. -Chris

...way!) > > > one at a time. For example, it seems that the thread agrees that the > > > overall design of constants are a problem: let's talk about > > > (incrementally!) moving constants to the right architecture. There > > > are good suggestions about this upthread. > > > > I'm not sure why you think anyone so far suggested anything to "fix it > > all" or to do it "not-incrementally". For example, I think we are > > talking about the design of constants and how it can be incrementally > > improved (for dif...

...LTO show an improvement in 3.7, but have regressed again in > 3.8. > > I'm curious how these times divide across Clang and various parts of > LLVM; rerunning with -ftime-report and summing the numbers across all > compiles could be interesting. > Based on the results I posted upthread about the relative time spend in the backend for debug vs release, we can estimate this. To summarize: 10% of time spent in LLVM for Debug 33% of time spent in LLVM for Release (I'll abbreviate "in LLVM" as just "backend"; this is "backend" from clang's perspec...

Is there a way to authenticate with an IP address? I''m using the LoginGenerator, but would like to bypass the "before_filter :login_required " if a user is in a correct IP range... Anyone know of a solution? Thanks! -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

...T_F_ANY_LAYOUT and VIRTIO_BLK_F_ANY_LAYOUT >>>>> specifically for net and block (note the new names). >> >> So why not a transport feature? Is it just because the SCSI commands >> for virtio-blk also require a config space field? Sorry if I missed >> this upthread. > > Mainly because I'm not sure that *all* devices are now safe. Are they? virtio-scsi's implementation in QEMU is not safe (been delaying that for too long, sorry), but the spec is safe. Paolo > I had a stress test half-written for this, pasted below. > > Otherwise I&...

...T_F_ANY_LAYOUT and VIRTIO_BLK_F_ANY_LAYOUT >>>>> specifically for net and block (note the new names). >> >> So why not a transport feature? Is it just because the SCSI commands >> for virtio-blk also require a config space field? Sorry if I missed >> this upthread. > > Mainly because I'm not sure that *all* devices are now safe. Are they? virtio-scsi's implementation in QEMU is not safe (been delaying that for too long, sorry), but the spec is safe. Paolo > I had a stress test half-written for this, pasted below. > > Otherwise I&...

...o move forward at this point in time. My > expectation, which I think represents LLVM’s historical approach, is that a > path to full support be planned out before this effort starts. Concretely, > I expect a real-world backend to be committed to LLVM as a necessary step. > What I meant upthread was: yes it makes sense to do cleanups before landing > a backend, but *someone* has to commit to upstreaming a backend before > you start the cleanups. When I say a backend I don’t mean a toy, I mean a > real backend. > IMO, the argument of removing "magic constants", and re...

...o: >> > 2) We introduce VIRTIO_NET_F_ANY_LAYOUT and VIRTIO_BLK_F_ANY_LAYOUT >> > specifically for net and block (note the new names). So why not a transport feature? Is it just because the SCSI commands for virtio-blk also require a config space field? Sorry if I missed this upthread. Paolo >> > 3) I note the special case of stupid descriptors. >> > 4) Enjoy our humble pie, don't hide it in a footnote! >> > >> > If that seems OK, I'll modify the net and block specs appropriately. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > R...

...o: >> > 2) We introduce VIRTIO_NET_F_ANY_LAYOUT and VIRTIO_BLK_F_ANY_LAYOUT >> > specifically for net and block (note the new names). So why not a transport feature? Is it just because the SCSI commands for virtio-blk also require a config space field? Sorry if I missed this upthread. Paolo >> > 3) I note the special case of stupid descriptors. >> > 4) Enjoy our humble pie, don't hide it in a footnote! >> > >> > If that seems OK, I'll modify the net and block specs appropriately. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > R...

...e of doing many impressive things, why spent that energy on this? 3) Even if someone is willing to keep this going, what ongoing liability is this for the project as a whole? Phabricator was done for the weekend, did someone’s pager go off? What is the SLA/SLO for the new system? As I mentioned upthread, I like Phabricator and its workflow from a personal perspective, but from a project perspective, I can’t see any reason to defend bespoke infra like this. -Chris > On Jun 29, 2020, at 4:11 AM, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26,...

As mentioned upthread, we're still on update 2 for various reasons. On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > Hi Reid, first off thanks *very* much for all your help fixing > 2013-related problems. We really appreciate it. > > > > Let me propose a...

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Nico Weber via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > As mentioned upthread, we're still on update 2 for various reasons. > > Do you mind elaborating on those reasons? Off the top of my head, clang-cl couldn't handle the code generated by the midl compiler in that version until fairly recently, and we've been seeing link.exe /INCREMENTAL failing intermi...

* mj: > Our autoreply message reads: "Your email has not been read nor > forwarded", which is also the case, forcing the sender to take action. No, it does not. An auto-reply message, even if it is actually read by the sender, can be ignored without penalty. An MTA rejection puts the ball into the sender's court because the message has never been accepted by the

...f course you can increase or decrease the | number 128 as you see fit. This is now multiply wrong: firstly, module-init-tools 3.16-1 (I haven't tried other versions) says that new files placed in /etc/modprobe.d should have a .conf suffix, and secondly, assuming Anders Kaseorg's message upthread about max_loop disabling dynamic allocation is correct, this configuration is no longer directly desirable. So whoever comes back to look at the loop device behavior should please make sure to update the README.Debian file also. ---> Drake Wilson

...IRTIO_BLK_F_ANY_LAYOUT >>>>>> specifically for net and block (note the new names). >>> >>> So why not a transport feature? Is it just because the SCSI commands >>> for virtio-blk also require a config space field? Sorry if I missed >>> this upthread. >> >> Mainly because I'm not sure that *all* devices are now safe. Are they? > > virtio-scsi's implementation in QEMU is not safe (been delaying that for > too long, sorry), but the spec is safe. Then if we added a transport feature, we couldn't use it :( So I...

...ut have regressed again in >> 3.8. >> >> I'm curious how these times divide across Clang and various parts of >> LLVM; rerunning with -ftime-report and summing the numbers across all >> compiles could be interesting. >> > > Based on the results I posted upthread about the relative time spend in > the backend for debug vs release, we can estimate this. > To summarize: > 10% of time spent in LLVM for Debug > 33% of time spent in LLVM for Release > (I'll abbreviate "in LLVM" as just "backend"; this is "backend"...

On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 11:12 -0700, Philip Reames wrote: > On 5/8/19 1:25 AM, Jesper Antonsson wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-05-06 at 15:56 -0700, Philip Reames via llvm-dev > > wrote: > > > On 5/6/19 2:43 AM, Tim Northover via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > On Mon, 6 May 2019 at 10:13, James Courtier-Dutton via llvm-dev > > > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

...hromium.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Nico Weber via cfe-dev > >> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > As mentioned upthread, we're still on update 2 for various reasons. > >> > >> Do you mind elaborating on those reasons? > > > > > > Off the top of my head, clang-cl couldn't handle the code generated by > the > > midl compiler in that version until fairly recently, an...

...you have consensus to move forward at this point in time. My expectation, which I think represents LLVM’s historical approach, is that a path to full support be planned out before this effort starts. Concretely, I expect a real-world backend to be committed to LLVM as a necessary step. What I meant upthread was: yes it makes sense to do cleanups before landing a backend, but someone has to commit to upstreaming a backend before you start the cleanups. When I say a backend I don’t mean a toy, I mean a real backend. > > Right now we have no commitment on anybody landing a backend, and we don’t rea...