similar to: [Bug 527] New: the check make target has a greedy debug grep

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=527 ------- Additional Comments From vapier@gentoo.org 2006-12-30 05:34 MET ------- Created an attachment (id=280) --> (https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=280&action=view) iptables-more-exact-check-grep.patch this tweaks the grep: egrep -e '(^|[[:space:]])(-g|-pg|-DIPTC_DEBUG)([[:space:]]|$)'

I have encountered a rather odd situation with Greedy where it will end up spilling a register that was populated with a zero (with a trivially rematerializable load-immediate instruction). In fact, it spills 3 such values (LICM moves stuff out of a loop, register coalescer replaces copies with load-immediates and then Greedy spills them). I personally can't think of a situation where a spill

I have used the greedy.wilks to stepwise discriminant analysis, but it doesn't work with my dataset. I don't understand which is the problem Could you help me please? Thanks in advance Marta > str(data_indiciN2) 'data.frame': 200 obs. of 36 variables: $ gruppo: Factor w/ 2 levels "0","1": 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ... $ I001N2: num 19.32 8.22 28.35 7.24

The greedy allocator is global, but so was the old linear scan allocator. Cameron On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris <cafxx at strayorange.com> wrote: > Just a quick question: is greedy still a local allocator (i.e. only takes into consideration the current bb) or a global one (takes into consideration the whole function)? > <cafxx.vcf> >

I have a linux box with kernel 2.4.22 and iptables 1.2.9 First, i patch linux kernel with Norbet Buckmuller''s .diff #cd \usr\src\linux #patch -p1 < imq-combo-debian-2.4.22.diff All correct Second, i -try to- patch iptables (following www.linuximq.net/faq.html) #cd /usr/src/linux/net/ipv4/netfilter I edit IMQ.pom-ng.patch and replace $KERNEL_DIR with /usr/src/linux #patch

On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:41 AM, 陳韋任 wrote: >> The greedy allocator is global, but so was the old linear scan allocator. > > In http://blog.llvm.org/2011/09/greedy-register-allocation-in-llvm-30.html > , it says "The algorithm is local, and it cannot clean up messes that > extend beyond a single basic block". Does it mean the rewriter algorithm > not the linear scan?

Il 26/09/2011 16:49, Jakob Stoklund Olesen ha scritto: > On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:41 AM, 陳韋任 wrote: > >>> The greedy allocator is global, but so was the old linear scan allocator. >> In http://blog.llvm.org/2011/09/greedy-register-allocation-in-llvm-30.html >> , it says "The algorithm is local, and it cannot clean up messes that >> extend beyond a single basic

> The greedy allocator is global, but so was the old linear scan allocator. In http://blog.llvm.org/2011/09/greedy-register-allocation-in-llvm-30.html , it says "The algorithm is local, and it cannot clean up messes that extend beyond a single basic block". Does it mean the rewriter algorithm not the linear scan? Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab,

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1275 Bug ID: 1275 Summary: if IPTC_DEBUG is defined, compiler reports errors Product: iptables Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: libiptc Assignee: netfilter-buglog

I do have a reproducer, but it's not for the faint of heart :) This is from a large and messy C file (Perlbench's regexec.c), reduced by bugpoint down to 1050 lines of IR. Perhaps I can paste it on pastebin. Just for fun, I added some debug dumps for machine instructions that spill registers (i.e. return non-zero from MachineInstr::getFoldedSpillSize()) that are fed by load-immediates and

I don't understand which is the problem Could you help me please? Thanks in advance Marta > str(data_indiciN2) 'data.frame': 200 obs. of 36 variables: $ gruppo: Factor w/ 2 levels "0","1": 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ... $ I001N2: num 19.32 8.22 28.35 7.24 14.7 ... $ I002N2: num 2.92 2.54 0.11 1.6 7.12 ... $ I003N2: num -22.362 -0.222 -19.291

On Sep 28, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Sep 27, 2011, at 12:11 AM, Leo Romanoff wrote: > >> >> >> It is true that names are not always reflecting the essense. But on the other hand, there is a lot of ongoing research on register allocation (and compilers in general) and it looks like more and more such efforts choose LLVM as a platform for

Thanks for the reduced test case, I’ll try to take a look by the end of the week. > On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Nemanja Ivanovic <nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> wrote: > > Finally managed to reduce this to something manageable: https://godbolt.org/z/Hw529k <https://godbolt.org/z/Hw529k> > > On line 40 of the output, we have a load-immediate to put zero into R3. Then we

Just a quick question: is greedy still a local allocator (i.e. only takes into consideration the current bb) or a global one (takes into consideration the whole function)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110926/d87aa2bd/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text

Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> writes: > On May 3, 2011, at 12:03 PM, David A. Greene wrote: >> Certainly. I would ask that we keep linearscan around, if possible, as >> long as there are significant regressions like this. Our customers tend >> to really, really care about performance. > > That's reasonable, and it is also useful to keep it

\On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Sébastien Boisvert <seb at boisvert.info> wrote: > Hi, > > I want to use LLVM 3.1 (with clang for the frontend) for compiling Open-MPI > 1.6.3, > which is a message-passing library. But I get a segmentation fault by the > "Greedy > Register Allocator". > > There is the bug # 11756 that solves a similar problem, but the

On Jan 27, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Borja Ferrer wrote: > Hello, > > I noticed the following interesting code sequence while compiling a piece of code with the backend I'm developing. Probably this issue is for Jakob, but anyways this is what I'm getting: > > STDWPtrQRr <fi#12>, 0, %R25R24; mem:ST2[FixedStack12](align=1) > STDWPtrQRr <fi#12>, 0, %R25R24;

Hi, I get strange code when using regalloc=greedy. A value spill is redundant and cleared, as another spill of same value is inserted. The former spill is however not NOP:ed, but KILL:ed, thus the operands get a kill status. The code becomes: %vreg301<def> = mv32Imm 200000000, pred:0, pred:%noreg, %CCReg<imp-def,dead>, %ac0<imp-use>, %ac1<imp-use>; aN32_0_7:%vreg301

On May 3, 2011, at 3:24 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> writes: > >> On May 3, 2011, at 12:03 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > >>> Certainly. I would ask that we keep linearscan around, if possible, as >>> long as there are significant regressions like this. Our customers tend >>> to really, really care about

http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12520 Summary: EXA greedy mode corruption Product: xorg Version: unspecified Platform: x86 (IA32) OS/Version: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Driver/nouveau AssignedTo: nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org