similar to: file/data server running CentOS

Dear all, I'll install Asterisk 1.4 in an IBM xSeries 226 server with four HD's available, using CentOS as the OS. What's the best RAID type recommendation ??? RAID 1 or RAID 5 ??? Regards Alejandro

Hi, I've been working on a Blackfin backend (llvm-3.6.0) based on the previous one that was removed in llvm-3.1. llc generates codes like this: 29 p1 = r2; 30 r5 = [p1]; 31 p1 = r2; 32 r6 = [p1 + 4]; 33 r5 = r6 + r5; 34 r6 = [p0 + -4]; 35 r5 *= r6; 36 p1 = r2; 37 r6 = [p1 + 8]; 38 p1 = r2; p1 and r2 are in different register classes. A p*

On 7/16/14, 6:09 PM, sgundapa wrote: > I see a couple of issues here. > > If I include .S files for ARM, the –no-integrated-as path complains about > Assembler errors. > > The integrated-as path works fine though. > These are very likely just differences between the old ARM assembler syntax and the new 'Unified' syntax. Can you use an assembler that accepts UAL

Hi all, I got a silly bug when compiling our project with the latest Clang. Here's the outputted assembly: > tst r3, #255 > strbeq r6, [r7] > ldreq r6, [r4, r6, lsl #2] > strne r6, [r7, #4] > ldr r6, [r4, r6, lsl #2] > bx r6 For the code to execute correctly, either the _ldr_ should be a _ldrne_ instruction or the _ldreq_ instruction should be removed. The error seems to

On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote: > Martin Storsjo wrote: >> This is required in order to build using the built-in assembler >> in clang. > > These patches break the gcc build (with "Error: bad instruction"). Ah, right, sorry about that. > Documentation I've seen is contradictory on which order ({cond}{size} or > {size}{cond}) is correct.

If I'm understanding what's going on in this test correctly, what's happening is: * ARMTargetLowering::LowerCall prefers indirect calls when a function is called at least 3 times in minsize * In thumb 1 (without -fno-omit-frame-pointer) we have effectively only 3 callee-saved registers (r4-r6) * The function has three arguments, so those three plus the register we need to hold the

Hi, I noticed a significant performance regression (up to 40%) on some internal CUDA benchmarks (a reduced example presented below). The root cause of this regression seems that IndVarSimpilfy widens induction variables assuming arithmetics on wider integer types are as cheap as those on narrower ones. However, this assumption is wrong at least for the NVPTX64 target. Although the NVPTX64 target

I've got an example where I think that there should be some loop-invariant optimization happening, but it's not. Here's the C code: #define DIM 8 #define UNROLL_DIM DIM typedef double InArray[DIM][DIM]; __declspec(noalias) void f1( InArray c, const InArray a, const InArray b ) { #pragma clang loop unroll_count(UNROLL_DIM) for( int i=0;i<DIM;i++) #pragma clang loop

On 20 October 2017 at 09:24, Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel.org> wrote: > > * Thomas Garnier <thgarnie at google.com> wrote: > >> Change the assembly code to use only relative references of symbols for the >> kernel to be PIE compatible. >> >> Position Independent Executable (PIE) support will allow to extended the >> KASLR randomization range below

On 20 October 2017 at 09:24, Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel.org> wrote: > > * Thomas Garnier <thgarnie at google.com> wrote: > >> Change the assembly code to use only relative references of symbols for the >> kernel to be PIE compatible. >> >> Position Independent Executable (PIE) support will allow to extended the >> KASLR randomization range below

Hello All, I was trying to add Microblaze target to LLVM backend. I was able to generate object file with relocations. and debug symbols. When I try to link this object file with microblaze GCC linker I am getting below errors and debug symbols are missing in it. mb-objdump: DWARF error: found dwarf version '15877', this reader only handles version 2, 3, 4 and 5 information

Hi Tim, thanks for the swift response! @debug is defined in the same module, which makes this all the more confusing. The target information from the working example are: target datalayout = "e-m:e-p:32:32-i64:64-v128:64:128-a:0:32-n32-S64" target triple = "armv6kz--linux-gnueabihf" from the ghc produced module: target datalayout =

I tried changing 'noalias' to 'restrict' in the code and I get: fma.c:17:12: warning: 'restrict' attribute only applies to return values that are pointers It seems like 'noalias' would be the correct attribute here, from the article you linked: "if a function is annotated as noalias, the optimizer can assume that, in addition to the parameters themselves,

On Saturday, April 18, 2020, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 3:02 AM Nagaraju Mekala via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> I was trying to add Microblaze target to LLVM backend. I was able to >> generate object file with relocations. and debug symbols. >>

fixes compilation issues with recent envytools, because movw was removed from fuc5, because it doesn't exist there anymore. The current code is most likely broken for fuc5 hardware as well and might have triggered all kinds of random memory reclocking fails. Changes in fuc3 binaries are tue do opcode optimizations using shorter opcodes when possible. Signed-off-by: Karol Herbst <kherbst

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:11 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah, not sure - you mention the linker produces errors, but the errors you showed looked like objdump errors? Were those errors from trying to dump the linked executable, and not errors that were produced by the linker itself? Yes, as mentioned earlier I was able to generate final executable but it

It seems to me that LLVM sub-register is not for the following hardware architecture. All instructions of a hardware are vector instructions. All registers contains 4 32-bit FP sub-registers. They are called r0.x, r0.y, r0.z, r0.w. Most instructions write more than one elements in this way: mul r0.xyw, r1, r2 add r0.z, r3, r4 sub r5, r0, r1 Notice that the four elements of r0 are written

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 03:36, John Brawn <John.Brawn at arm.com> wrote: > > > Could you please point out what am I doing wrong in the patch ? > > It's because you're getting the function name by doing > callee->getName().str().c_str() > The str() call generates a temporary copy of the name which ceases to exist outside of this expression > causing the

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > and smp_read_acquire(), But they provide different grades of transitivity, which is where all the confusion lays. smp_mb() is strongly/globally transitive, all CPUs will agree on the order. Whereas the RCpc release+acquire is weakly so, only the two

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > and smp_read_acquire(), But they provide different grades of transitivity, which is where all the confusion lays. smp_mb() is strongly/globally transitive, all CPUs will agree on the order. Whereas the RCpc release+acquire is weakly so, only the two