similar to: Disk I/O with OpenSSH

On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Chris, I've CC'd Eric Botcazou in the hope that he will clear up just what > the Ada front-end needs from the rest of the compiler as far as asynchronous > exceptions are concerned. > >>> gcc Ada turns signals into exceptions. As far as I know it does this >>> completely asynchronously, and the fact

On Jun 13, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >> There is really no alternative to putting EH edges on basic blocks if you're going to support preemptive asynchronous exceptions — some random multiply that gets hoisted out of a loop has to change exception handlers just in case that's where the PC lands during a signal. There isn't much point in complaining that doing so

Hi Chris, I've CC'd Eric Botcazou in the hope that he will clear up just what the Ada front-end needs from the rest of the compiler as far as asynchronous exceptions are concerned. >> gcc Ada turns signals into exceptions. As far as I know it does this >> completely asynchronously, and the fact that LLVM doesn't support this >> is rather bad as far as Ada is

I don't know if anyone would be interested in this but I'm including a patch to allow for offsets when transferring files with SCP. It's pretty simple and assumes the user knows what they are doing (for example, if transferring with a wild card the offset would apply to all files). -A is the number of bytes offset from the beginning of the files. -Z is the number of bytes inset

Hi John, On 13/06/11 23:27, John McCall wrote: > On Jun 13, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >> Although I believe asynchronous signals are also best handled by the runtime. They can be converted into cooperative exceptions. I have to say I can't see the value in resuming from an interrupt at literally any instruction address. > > For what it's worth, SEH (which

On Jun 13, 2011, at 12:29 AM, John McCall wrote: > > On Jun 12, 2011, at 11:24 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 2011, at 4:40 PM, John McCall wrote: >> >>> On Jun 12, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 12, 2011, at 1:25 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Sohail, >>>>>

> From: Tim Northover via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Emitting directives in the epilogue is hard because the directives > apply to all instructions after in program-counter order. So if you > have an epilogue in the middle of a function and emit CFI directives > saying the registers are back where they were then the unwinder will > think that applies to the

On Jun 14, 2011, at 2:11 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > gcc Ada turns signals into exceptions. As far as I know it does this > completely asynchronously, and the fact that LLVM doesn't support this > is rather bad as far as Ada is concerned. That said, the Ada front-end You're saying that it turns asynch signals like SIGHUP (which can occur on any machine instruction) into signals?

On 19 Jan 2018, at 14:48, John Reagan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > OpenVMS' EH model is for full asynchronous prologue/epilogue EH. We do more > than just program-level EH, but have to deal with OS events (timers going off, > asynch I/O completion, mailboxes filled with data, etc.) which could result in > an unwind occurring. > >

I think it's valuable to have precise / asynchronous unwind information without adding support for non-call exceptions. Profilers and debuggers need to be able to unwind the stack from arbitrary instruction boundaries, but they don't need to run exception handlers. We can still declare that outside the model. Speaking of which, barring bugs, we do support precise unwind info on Win64.

Howdy, As a note, we now have HPN patch for OpenSSH 4.2 at http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/ Its still part of the last set of patches (HPN11) so there aren't any additional changes in the code. It patches, configures, compiles, and passes make tests without a problem. I've not done extensive testing for this version of openssh but I don't foresee any problems. I

I was comparing some traces from SCP and SFTP when transferring the same file 200MB file between the same host pairs. Even when I put SFTP in batch mode I noticed that I saw 403208 bytes from the receiver in comparison to 3368 bytes with SCP. I've attached the relevant output from tcptrace below (the b->a column is the return side of the trace). Mostly I'm just curious as to what

If anyone is using the HPN patch on a high performance link I was wondering if you could take a moment to answer a quick question Are you seeing vastly different performance between scp throughput and sftp throughput? On my test network (pittsburgh to chicago) I'm getting 26MB/s with scp (arcfour) and only 6.4MB/s with sftp (arcfour). We just started looking into this but it woudl be nice

Checking for poll(POLLIN) only wakes us up when the server sends more bytes over the wire. But the way gnutls is implemented, it reads as many non-blocking bytes as possible from the wire before then parsing where the encoded message boundaries lie within those bytes. As a result, we may already have the server's next reply in memory without needing to block on the server sending yet more

http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/ Mike Stevens and I just released a new set of high performance networking patches for OpenSSH 3.9p1, 4.0p1, and 4.1p1. These patches will provide the same set of functionality across all 3 revisions. New functionality includes 1) HPN performance even without both sides of the connection being HPN enabled. As long as the bulk data flow is in the

I've been looking at the SFTP code and the filexfer RFC (and ended up answering my prior questions). I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts as to what might happen if the maximum number of outstanding requests was increased. Currently its set in sftp.c at /* Number of concurrent outstanding requests */ size_t num_requests = 16;

On Jun 12, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Sohail Somani wrote: > On 11-06-12 7:40 PM, John McCall wrote: >> On Jun 12, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote: >> >>>> On Jun 12, 2011, at 1:25 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Hi Sohail, >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is LLVM expressive enough to represent asynchronous

The HPN12 patch available from http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh addresses performance issues with bulk data transfer over high bandwidth delay paths. By adjusting internal flow control buffers to better fit the outstanding data capacity of the path significant improvements in bulk data throughput performance are achieved. In other words, transfers over the internet are a lot

I'm wondering if I'm missing something. With ssh and scp you can force the use of IPv4 with the -4 option. This doesn't seem to be an option or sftp. Is this by design or oversight?

Is LLVM expressive enough to represent asynchronous exceptions? --------------------------------------------------------------- Summary: Need new LLVM instructions or extending of all instructions. C++ exceptions are synchronous: the compiler knows when/where they are being raised. Asynchronous exceptions can be raised at any time. For example, an integer divide-by-zero may raise an