similar to: Fwd: files-from option requires dot .

"Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias at gmail.com> writes: > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias at xilinx.com> > > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias at xilinx.com> First off, I have handed maintainership off to Michael S. Tsirkin, so his word is now law. That said... there's nothing fundamentally *wrong* with this, but

"Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias at gmail.com> writes: > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias at xilinx.com> > > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias at xilinx.com> First off, I have handed maintainership off to Michael S. Tsirkin, so his word is now law. That said... there's nothing fundamentally *wrong* with this, but

A large file (2+ GB) needs to be transfered, but I see more than one temp file for it. One temp file is larger than the other, but this morning I tried to rsync again, and it DID NOT resume the largest temp file - it resumed the smaller one. Is there an explanation of this behaviour? I didn't want --inplace because I don't need it (I have the disk space). - -rw-r--r-- 1 felipe users

virtio spec requires that all drivers set DRIVER_OK before using devices. While rpmsg isn't yet included in the virtio 1 spec, previous spec versions also required this. virtio rpmsg violates this rule: is calls kick before setting DRIVER_OK. The fix isn't trivial since simply calling virtio_device_ready earlier would mean we might get an interrupt in parallel with adding buffers.

virtio spec requires that all drivers set DRIVER_OK before using devices. While rpmsg isn't yet included in the virtio 1 spec, previous spec versions also required this. virtio rpmsg violates this rule: is calls kick before setting DRIVER_OK. The fix isn't trivial since simply calling virtio_device_ready earlier would mean we might get an interrupt in parallel with adding buffers.

Hi guys, In next three years I'm going to get the scientific degree in System programming. That's why I'm looking for the interesting and actual theme not like a new bicycle with square rings. My degree work in university was connected with value range propagation (VRP) functionality in clang static analyzer based on AST. I founded it rather interesting and want to follow this

Hi Andrey, > On 21.02.2011 20:27, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: >> My work is not part of the LLVM mainline yet. But I would be happy to >> contribute with the code of my range analysis implementation if it can help >> you in something else. > We were thinking of adding VRP to LLVM too, though we were mostly > interested in Patterson's approach (i.e. not

Hi Guys, I checked the open projects on LLVM site, and superoptimizer theme seems to be quite interesting for me. So im going to write the LLVM superoptimizer (http://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/publications/papers/asplos06.pdf) :) Is this theme still actual? Could you please advise me some usefull articles? -- Best regards, Sergey 2012/5/26 Serg Anohovsky <serg.anohovsky at gmail.com>: >

rsync -b --suffix=.felipe /tmp/file1 /tmp/file2 remote_host:/tmp/ If file1 has not changed, I still get a /tmp/file1.felipe file which is 100% exactly the same as /tmp/file1 Can this be prevented, while still backing up files that have changed? Cheers, Felipe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi Douglas, On 21.02.2011 20:27, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > My work is not part of the LLVM mainline yet. But I would be happy to > contribute with the code of my range analysis implementation if it can help > you in something else. We were thinking of adding VRP to LLVM too, though we were mostly interested in Patterson's approach (i.e. not connected with SSI form). It

David/Johan, I would love to claim victory, but I don't think that D34901 catches this case. However, I got interested and threw this together quickly: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35140. This does catch the below case. If people are interested I can add test cases and submit for formal review. FWIW, it does hit about 1/3 of all of the SPEC benchmarks. I haven't done any performance

> Predsimplify is believed to have bugs (it results in miscompiled > programs) and certainly isn't efficient (it was written before much of > include/ADT). Finally, predsimplify is likely to go away once I or > someone else writes a proper VRP pass. Whoever does this, I strongly encourage looking into using (or at least providing optional support for) the Apron library:

On Jul 9, 2017 10:24 AM, "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: >> Matt Simpson and I briefly discussed this transformation. One of his > suggestions was to add a pass in the pipeline where the dominator tree was > available (note my patch used a poor man's version of domination) and to > add range meta-data to values (or replace values if we know the

On 7/7/2017 4:59 PM, Davide Italiano wrote: > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Chad Rosier <mcrosier at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> David/Johan, >> >> I would love to claim victory, but I don't think that D34901 catches this >> case. >> > Hi Chad, thanks for taking another look at this. > Maybe I didn't bisect correctly. Apologies. Anyway, more fun

Hi John, John Regehr wrote: > PredicateSimplifier is a pretty interesting pass, but it doesn't look > like opt invokes it at any standard -Ox level, and so I assume that > llvm-gcc also does not use this pass? If that is right, I'm curious > about why this is the case -- does it simply not provide enough code > speedup to compensate for the increase in compile time? I

Hi list I was wondering if this is (or could be) possible with rsync. I was wondering if there was a way to change the bandwidth limit (--bwlimit=KBPS) dynamically while rsync is running? Could this be possible maybe with signals like USR1 add 5KBPS and USR2 subtracts 5KBPS? I'm not a programmer, just throwing ideas out there! Felipe

From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias at xilinx.com> Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias at xilinx.com> --- drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c index 73354ee..9ae53a0 100644 ---

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:51:48PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias at gmail.com> writes: > > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias at xilinx.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias at xilinx.com> > > First off, I have handed maintainership off to Michael S. Tsirkin, so >

Hello, I am trying to figure out, what vrp propagation does in llvm. I tried this program: #include <stdio.h> int main() { int s = 0; int j = 0; for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { j = j+i+1; s+=j; } return (s+j); } And got this under optimized version ( I don't want everything to be eliminated) define i32 @main()

On 15 January 2015 at 10:49, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> > wrote: > >> Would it be wrong to generate the llvm.assume IR suggested below? in GVN? >> > > I think so... Because: > > One very small tweak you could make would be to add an llvm.assume inside