similar to: Multiple E1s over TDMoE?

Dear all I use R for Windows 2.3.1 on a fully updated Windows XP Home SP2 machine and I have two related regular expression problems. platform i386-pc-mingw32 arch i386 os mingw32 system i386, mingw32 status major 2 minor

I was trying to establish a TDMoE span of 4 channels between two Asterisk servers. Machine A has a T100P to our PBX. Machine B has no Zaptel hardware. With 4 channels (e&m signalling) the red alarm never clears, and eventually machine A panics. With 24 channels, the TDMoE span seems to work perfectly. Is this hardcoded somewhere? I don't really need a full 1.544 Mbps between my two

Hi All, Please bear my ignorance but what is TDMoE used for? Illustrations with practical applications, scenarios or set ups will be most appreciated. Thanks Luan

Hi all, I'm having some problems getting TDMoE setup for the 1st time. I have a TE405P installed in the main server with an ethernet cross-connection to the secondary machine. (Yes, I know about IAX2 but I want to use TDMoE to simulate using T1s.) I'm using -HEAD from yesterday. On the main machine /etc/zaptel.conf: loadzone = us defaultzone=us

Some of the optimizations that the first DAG combine performs is counter productive for our 8-bit target. For example in: // I dropped the types because they are irrelevant. // Excuse me for changing the syntax... store %tmp1, %var %tmp2 = load %var %tmp4 = add %tmp3, %tmp2 Since load is the only user of var and since var has just be stored to, it assumes that %tmp1 is alive and it goes ahead

Hello R experts, I'd like to studentize a matrix (tmp1) by column using apply() function and skip some specific values such as zeros in the example below to tmp2 but not tmp3. I used the script below and only can get a matrix tmp3. Could you please help me to studentize the matrix (tmp1) without changing the zeros and generate a new matrix tmp2? Thanks, Joshua tmp1 [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4]

I can't think of any workaround? this optimization eliminates so much information that if we want to retrieve back, it will take a lot of processing and may not necessarily be able to retrieve the lost information for all cases. Besides, why does the generic part of llvm have to force an optimization that is counter productive to some targets? If there are other phases that do the same

Hi, I have two problems regarding the llvm.stackrestore intrinsic. I'm running on 3.0, but a quick test on trunk also showed the same behavior. First problem: --------------- I have code like: tmp1 = call llvm.stacksave() tmp2 = alloca [do some stuff with tmp2] call llvm.stackrestore(tmp1) [some other stuff] tmp3 = call llvm.stacksave() tmp4 = alloca [do some stuff

Hi, I'm using LLVM 2.7 right now, and I found "opt -std-compile-opts" has missed some opportunities for optimization: define void @spa.main() readonly { entry: %tmp = load i32* @dst-ip ; <i32> [#uses=3] %tmp1 = and i32 %tmp, -16777216 ; <i32> [#uses=1] %tmp2 = icmp eq i32 %tmp1, 167772160 ; <i1> [#uses=2]

Dan Gohman wrote: > There certainly are wishlist items for TableGen and TableGen-based > instruction descriptions, though I don't know of an official list. > Offhand, > a few things that come to mind are the ability to handle nodes with > multiple results, Is there an official workaround, BTW? - Volodya

I am testing vectorization on the following test case: float x[1024], y[1024]; void myloop1() { for (long int k = 0; k < 512; k++) { x[2*k] = x[2*k]+y[k]; } } Vectorization failed due to "unsafe dependent memory operation". I traced the LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp and found the reason is the NoWrapFlag for SCEVAddRecExpr is not set and consequently the

Wojciech, I've just commited a patch to llvm-gcc 4.2, which moves openmp lowering stuff to be run little bit earlier, so llvm-convert will catch its result. It looks now gcc atomic & sync builtins should be introduced to llvm as a remaining ingredient. Example program from Diego's paper now compiles to: @.str = internal constant [10 x i8] c"sum = %d\0A\00" ;

In LegalizeDAG.cpp, truncating stores are custom-lowered in line 1314-1317: 1314 case TargetLowering::Custom: 1315 ReplaceNode(SDValue(Node, 0), 1316 TLI.LowerOperation(SDValue(Node, 0), DAG)); 1317 break; Is there a reason it doesn't check whether the SDValue returned from TargetLowering::LowerOperation is null before it replaces the

Hey, as some of you may know we're in process of experimenting with LLVM in Gallium3D (Mesa's new driver model), where LLVM would be used both in the software only (by just JIT executing shaders) and hardware (drivers will implement LLVM code-generators) cases. While the software only case is pretty straight forward I just realized I missed something in my initial evaluation. That

[+Arnold] > On Jun 10, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > [+CC Andy] > >> Can anyone familiar with ScalarRevolution tell me whether this is an >> expected behavior or a bug? > > Assuming you're talking about 2*k, this is a bug. ScalarEvolution > should be able to prove that {0,+,4} is <nsw> and

Hi, I want to clone a given function, and add an argument to it. I then want to add a call to that new function. I have a callInstruction CI, which I want to transform to call this new function, and to take a new argument. The code I added was as follows CI->getCalledFunction()->dump(); Function* DirectF = CloneFunction(CI->getCalledFunction());

In all the information on Asterisk it takes about TDMoE to link asterisk servers together. Is this IAX??? How would I use TDMoE. Maybe my first question should be, What is it??? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20030516/cd74bddb/attachment.htm

The code sequence: > store %tmp1, var > > tmp4 = add %tmp3 , %tmp1 > can happen even if you eliminate the specific dag combine in question. The real solution lies elsewhere. To me, this seems more like a register allocation problem. Evan On Mar 22, 2009, at 9:39 PM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > I can't think of any workaround? this optimization eliminates

Hi Danny, Thanks for that :) However I've just updated the prototype patch to NewGVN and it didn't need any API changes - all I rely on is GVNExpression. Hongbin, I wanted to explain a little about what GVNSink can currently do, what it was designed for and hopefully how to make it handle your testcase. *Background* Common code sinking is more difficult to efficently do than one might

Hi all, I'm having some trouble with inline asm expressions, more specifically how to create the right FunctionType for a given constraint set. So far it has worked well for inputs, but not for outputs. The inline asm support in this language (which is D, LLVMDC[1]) is through asm *statements*. I never have inline asm *expressions*, and outputs are always via memory. I D my test looks like