similar to: stalling during delta processing

I am seeing some rather strange behavior with synch of 2 directories on the same system using 2.6.2. The older file is the image of a full backup and is 29Gig in size. The new image is a slice of an incremental backup and is 101Meg in size. the command line is: time /home/wally/rsync/rsync-2.6.2 -av --rsh=rsh --backup --stats --block-size=<xxx> --write-batch=kbup1aaa

problem with --backup I am doing this the old fashioned way via e-mail. I deal with Bugzilla too much and would prefer to not open yet another bugzilla account that generates more e-mail that I dont need to sift through, especially when it looks very similar to in-house bugzilla stuff. I am running rsync 2.6.2 as it is downloaded with only the --bwlimit patch supplied by Wayne via e-mail

On 03/15/2018 06:09 PM, Alexandre Isoard wrote: > Does git-commit-after-all print correctly after all the passes? Maybe > I messed it up and it skip some passes, therefore having less to do? I did verify that total amount of lines committed to git is reasonably high: ] git rev-list master | while read cmt; do git show $cmt:some-ir.ll; done | wc -l 1587532 corresponding number for

I'm trying to set up a back-up file server (192.168.123.3) that will rsync files from the main production file server (192.168.123.4). The production file server is set up to run rsync --daemon, and I know it is doing so because on my backup server I can execute rsync 192.168.123.4:: and get the list of modules as follows: etc home samba Here's my /etc/rsyncd.conf file uid =

Hmm... I tried Alexandre's fix from D44244 and surprisingly it appears that just using -print-module-scope w/o any additional git actions is waaaay slower on my testcase than -git-commit-module-all. Hell, even a plan -print-after-all is slower:  ] time R/bin/opt -O3 some-ir.ll -disable-output -git-commit-after-all 2>/dev/null real    0m8.041s user    0m7.133s sys     0m0.936s ] time

Does git-commit-after-all print correctly after all the passes? Maybe I messed it up and it skip some passes, therefore having less to do? Either that, or piping has a higher cost than writing to file. Looks like it surprisingly spends much less time in system more when going through file. Maybe that's because the file is consistently around the same size and is mmapped into memory

On 3/14/19 2:04 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:37 PM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com > <mailto:fedor.sergeev at azul.com>> wrote: > >> >> - Add a new proxy ModuleAnalysisManagerLoopProxy for a loop pass >> to be able to get to the ModuleAnalysisManager in one step and >> PSI through it. >

For this to be really usable in this setup we need additionally to:   - extend -print-module-scope to cover basic block passes   - introduce a clear way to separate module IRs as those are being printed by -print-after-all But yes, it should work, and a wrapper that pipes to git fast-import seems to be the best way to handle it. regards,   Fedor. On 03/15/2018 12:31 AM, Daniel Neilson via

On 03/15/2018 01:32 PM, Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev wrote: > For this to be really usable in this setup we need additionally to: >   - extend -print-module-scope to cover basic block passes >   - introduce a clear way to separate module IRs as those are being > printed by -print-after-all > > But yes, it should work, and a wrapper that pipes to git fast-import > seems to be

> > `opt < %s -passed='asan' -asan-module -S` > asan-module is another ModulePass, not a commandline option. You can't mix that like this. Cheers, Philip > doesn't produce the same IR as > > `opt < %s -asan -asan-module -S` > > More specifically, the only thing missing seems to be the > `asan.module_ctor` that should get added to the global

Update: I was able to make progress on it today ( See https://reviews.llvm.org/D43729 ). Apparently my problems were: * Iterating through the instruction/block list after erasing block/instruction * Trying to split block after removing one predecessor Regarding the latter, it appears that semantics of `DuplicateInstructionsInSplitBetween` change significantly in such case, and it starts to loop

I have a bit of an issue with rsync. I am using to keep directories in sync via another server for backup. Here is the server config [w1] path = /w1 comment = w1 web dir [w2] path = /w2 comment = w2 web dir Now on the client i run this command rsync -avv --delete --force domain.com::w1/ /w1/ It will NOT delete anything that is no on the server anymore.. for example on the server/client there

I think you realized this now, but to be clear: More likely, you've found some bugs. Unfortunately, not all of these utilities have good unit tests (though they should!). This would not be the first set of bugs people have found wrt to very start/end of blocks, or bb == predbb issues. On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Fedor Indutny via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

Frontends _are_ using PassBuilder, but they need to hook into the default pipeline creation to insert the sanitizer passes. On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:15 PM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> wrote: > Hmm... frontends should be using PassBuilder anyway. > And if they are using PassBuilder then they are using PassRegistry.def as > well - all the >

The print-module-after-all type of option exists in upstream: -print-module-scope - When printing IR for print-[before|after]{-all} always print a module IR commit 7d160f714357f6784ead669ce516e94991c12e5a Author: Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com<mailto:fedor.sergeev at azul.com>> Date: Fri Dec 1 17:42:46 2017 +0000 IR

Hello Fedor. Thank you for the information. I made a simple patch that exposes PassInstrumentationCallback so llvmGetPassPluginInfo can use it: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71086 . Would this change make sense? Thanks, Juneyoung Lee On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:44 AM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> wrote: > > > On 12/3/19 8:01 PM, Juneyoung Lee via llvm-dev wrote: > >

On 06/13/2018 09:13 PM, Philip Pfaffe wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:03 PM David A. Greene via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com > <mailto:fedor.sergeev at azul.com>> writes: > > >> Ok.  The way I envision this working from a user

Do you really need to write the entire module to a single file? (Hence my earlier hint...) Why not write out a separate file for each def, so you don't need to dump functions that haven't changed? On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 03/16/2018 01:21 AM, Fedor Sergeev via llvm-dev wrote: > >

On 8/7/19 6:20 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote: > I basically run "clang > -fexperimental-new-pass-manager -print-after-all ..." > > It's conceivable that something is different in our setup or in clang > (from opt)... I'll see if I can reproduce it outside our setup. Does it depend on machine architecture? I generally use x86... regards,   Fedor. > > Thanks.

But they're deeply connected. I debug codegen problems all the time. That opt-bisect doesn't work with codegen is really unfortunate. If opt-bisect should work with codegen then we need to think about how codegen will work with the new PM. I agree that whether or not the new PM becomes default is somewhat orthogonal but eventually it will and at that point I hope we have a functioning