similar to: Kerberos stopped working

Hi , The following loop fails to be vectorized since the load c[i] is casted as i64 and the store c[i] is double. The loop access analysis gives up since they are in different types. Since these two memory operations are in the same size, I believe the loop access analysis should return forward dependence and thus the loop can be vectorized. Any comments? Thanks, Jin #define N 1000 double

Hi, > On Jul 7, 2020, at 18:37, Stefanos Baziotis via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > Ah, that's important information I didn't have. Thank you! > > No problem, glad to help! > > To the rest of your thoughts, I certainly agree. One interesting question is why LAA > didn't use DA at all. Other than that, note that LAA is quite

Hi Ashutosh, > On Mar 16, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > From: Adam Nemet [mailto:anemet at apple.com <mailto:anemet at apple.com>] > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:48 AM > To: Nema, Ashutosh > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Loop

A friend and I mirror our music collections on each other's servers; between the two of us we have several hundred gigs of flac files. My friend runs Linux, I run FreeBSD. Recently we started playing with flac-1.1.4 (we had been using flac-1.1.2 previously) and I noticed something strange. flac-1.1.4, run with identical options on identical files, produces different output on the linux

> On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:46 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > Thanks Adam for your reply. > > From: Adam Nemet [mailto:anemet at apple.com <mailto:anemet at apple.com>] > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 3:23 AM > To: Nema, Ashutosh > Cc: Hal Finkel; Philip Reames; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject:

I already installed rsync on both my server(running FREEBSD 4.4) and win98 macine. My LAN don't connect to the internet so it is quite secure, is it possible if I don't use OpenSSH? when I run "rsync 172.22.0.104::", I get this message: "failed to cennect to 172.22.0.104 - Resource is remote" 172.22.0.104 is the ip address of my server. It is running rsync as a

I have been looking into this small test case (Part A) where loop vectorization is disabled due to possible store-load forwarding conflict (Part B). As you can see, due to the presence of dependence distance 2 the loop is vectorizable only for a width of 2. However, the presence of dependence distance 15 (due to y[j-15]) results in store-load forwarding issue as store packet of y[16:17] (iteration

> On Mar 20, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > > Yes, this is what I was proposing above and here ;): > Thanks Adam it’s for confirming J NP :). > > > No, not hasLoopInvariantStore but hasAccessToLoopInvariantAddress. > Its only for invariant stores[not loads], Using ‘hasLoopInvariantStore’ (or a name with invariant store)

We have a few old DOS programs which, when run under Windows 2000 is a DOS full screen session are unable to write files on our Samba server. These programs (the "brief" editor, and the "tango" CAD package) are able to write to local files on the Windows 2000 system. I set Samba debug to 10 and found the following reported when Tango tried to write a file:

Hi, I've configured Samba as PDC. It is to serve Windows 98/2000/XP workstations. Firstly everything works fine but with adding new users to the domain there occurs serious trouble. The network printers begin to refuse access. And then I noticed that the workstations begin to refuse access too. smb.conf --- [global] netbios name = OBLR workgroup = X125 server

> On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:33 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > > > I am about to post the patches to make LAA suitable for Loop Distribution. As you will hopefully find this will make the LAA more generic. I will cc you on the patches. > > Sure Adam. > > RuntimeCheckEmitter > “RuntimeCheckEmitter::addRuntimeCheck” > While creating

Hi Hal, 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> : > > On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: > > > > On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 09/11/2017 12:26 PM, Adam Nemet wrote: > > Hi Hal, Tobias, Michael and others, > *...* >

> On Jul 13, 2016, at 2:02 AM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:40 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com <mailto:chisophugis at gmail.com>> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13,

2017-09-21 22:22 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>: > > On 09/22/2017 12:03 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > Hi Hal, > > > 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > >> >> On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via

On 09/22/2017 12:25 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > > 2017-09-21 22:22 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov > <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>>: > > > On 09/22/2017 12:03 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: >> Hi Hal, >> >> >> 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at

Stefanos Baziotis via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Their most important difference is that DA is used for compile-time / > static checks while LAA is mainly used for generating run-time checks. Ah, that's important information I didn't have. Thank you! > Now, as for unifying them, if we mean something other than just putting > them in the same file,

On 09/22/2017 12:03 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > Hi Hal, > > > 2017-09-21 20:59 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>: > > > On 09/12/2017 10:26 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev >>> <llvm-dev at

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Vikram TV <vikram.tarikere at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Vikram TV <vikram.tarikere at gmail.com <mailto:vikram.tarikere at gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the reply. Few thoughts inlined. > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com

Michael Kruse via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > AFAIK they are independent developments. LoopAccessAnalysis was > extracted out of the LoopVectorizer in 2015, and first developed in > 2013 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d517976758c8674bdcd4c74457f7a83f20e432c5) > > DependenceAnalysis was a from-scratch implementation from 2012 >

This sure looks like a bug but maybe a configuration error on my part. I am trying to migrate out current OS/2 Warp 4 based file server to Samba. We have OS/2, Win98, WinNT4, and Win2k clients. I set Samba 2.2.3a up to use security = SHARE as this appears to be the closest to what the OS/2 Warp4 based system supports. All clients are able to access the files on the Samba service but loading