similar to: Max-Session lifetime?

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > On 11/05/2014 10:54 AM, Reid Kleckner wrote: > > This seems fine to me. The optimizer can (soundly) conclude that %p is >> dead after the "lifetime.end" (for the two instructions), and dead before >> the "lifetime.start" (for the *single* instruction in

Dovecot 2.0.9 So I am trying to get my Outlook 2010 client to use TLS with Dovecot. The Outlook error that I get is: Log onto incoming mail server (IMAP): A secure connection to the server cannot be established. I have set the port to 143,993,995 none of them work, and the security to TLS. I have all of the certificates in the full chain installed on my machine and when viewing them

Hi Paul, I'm surprised to hear that you aren't seeing any adverse effects. As I understand it, the memory for the function pointer returned by getPointerToFunction is owned by the JITMemoryManager which was used in creating the ExecutionEngine. In the case of the legacy JIT engine, the JITMemoryManager is owned by the JITEmitter which in turn is owned by the JIT ExecutionEngine. In the

2017-03-31 0:19 GMT+02:00 Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>: >> I modified Polly's code generator to produce >> >> if (c) { >> llvm.lifetime.start(&var) >> } else { >> llvm.lifetime.start(&var) >> } >> [...] >> llvm.lifetime.end(&var) >> >> and it does not miscompile

Am 03.07.20 um 13:05 schrieb Rowland penny via samba: > On 03/07/2020 11:33, Stefan Just via samba wrote: >> We are using tmux, screen and x2go to run long-running jobs on our >> compute servers. $HOME and other data should be mounted via CIFS or >> NFS4. Because such a job can run for more than a week, I would like to >> increase the Kerberos ticket lifetime or better

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Oh, I was reading "precedes/following" as having static (dominance) > >> meaning. That is, in the above example you could not delete the store > >> since it is not true that > >> llvm.lifetime.end dominates it. > >> > >> Nick, is

On 12/26/2012 12:25 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >> Ok, suppose you have the following code: >> BB1: >> llvm.lifetime.start(%a) >> store to %a >> llvm.lifetime.end(%a) >> br %BB2 >> >> BB2: >> <some code> >> br %BB1 >> >> If you remove the first "llvm.lifetime.start", then when you enter

2017-03-31 1:16 GMT+02:00 Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>: > if you transformed > > lifetime.start(%p) > use %p > lifetime.end(%p) > into > > if (c) > lifetime.start(%p) > use %p > lifetime.end(%p) > > That is *definitely* a bug in polly. > Stack coloring should be able to handle it if that is the original IR but that is definitely not a

On 12/28/2012 04:20 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >> Suppose you have four lifetime operations on the same address in memory, >> with loads and stores all around them: >> >> start1--end1 .. start2--end2 >> >> If you remove start1 then you have a bare pointer, the memory came from >> somewhere and you lose the optimization that loads before start1 become

2017-03-31 15:00 GMT+02:00 Than McIntosh <thanm at google.com>: > Hi all, > > Just to clarify: the code I'm seeing in the stack coloring dumps is a little > different from what is being discussed in previous spots in this thread. The > example that Michael cited earlier on was > > if (c) { > llvm.lifetime.start(&var) > } > [...] >

> Ok, suppose you have the following code: > BB1: > llvm.lifetime.start(%a) > store to %a > llvm.lifetime.end(%a) > br %BB2 > > BB2: > <some code> > br %BB1 > > If you remove the first "llvm.lifetime.start", then when you enter > %BB1 for the second time, your "store to %a" can be considered invalid, > as you've

On 12/26/2012 12:28 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek wrote: > On 12/25/2012 1:31 PM, Alexey Samsonov wrote: >> >> Ok, suppose you have the following code: >> BB1: >> llvm.lifetime.start(%a) >> store to %a >> llvm.lifetime.end(%a) >> br %BB2 >> >> BB2: >> <some code> >> br %BB1 >> >> If you remove the first

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.

On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > On 24 December 2012 04:02, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > > 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

2017-03-31 13:46 GMT+02:00 Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>: > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> > wrote: >> >> 2017-03-31 1:16 GMT+02:00 Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>: >> > if you transformed >> > >> > lifetime.start(%p) >> > use %p >> >

It's useful to think about lifetime.start/end as being equivalent to a memset of undef. They effectively clobber what was there and reinitialize it with "nothing". If you transform lifetime.start in a way that would be incorrect if it were storing undef, then that transform is incorrect. On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

On 12/27/2012 12:35 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >>> Oh, I was reading "precedes/following" as having static (dominance) >>> meaning. That is, in the above example you could not delete the store >>> since it is not true that >>> llvm.lifetime.end dominates it. >>> >>> Nick, is this what you had in mind? If not, then we must delete a

On 12/26/2012 3:38 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > > Of course you can re-start memory that's been ended... if that isn't > clear in the langref, please fix. There are several things that aren't clear (at least when I read it). Case 1: block: %a = phi i32* ..., [ %a.next, %block ] llvm.lifetime.begin(4, %a) ... llvm.lifetime.end(4, %a) <-- (1) %a.next =

On 9/30/2020 4:11 PM, Remy Zandwijk via samba wrote: >> On 30 Sep 2020, at 21:42, Jason Keltz via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >> >> >> On 9/30/2020 3:01 PM, Remy Zandwijk via samba wrote: >>>>>> On the client, add: >>>>>> >>>>>> gensec_gssapi:requested_life_time = <int> # seconds

We are using tmux, screen and x2go to run long-running jobs on our compute servers. $HOME and other data should be mounted via CIFS or NFS4. Because such a job can run for more than a week, I would like to increase the Kerberos ticket lifetime or better the Kerberos ticket maximum renewable lifetime. I found this guide: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba_KDC_Settings Unfortunately, only