similar to: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: btrfs-image.c: Added NULL pointer check.

Unfortunately my laptop deadlocks from time to time, and too often it triggers this bug in btrfs which is quite hard to recover from. The bigger problem is that all the user sees (if anything) is seemingly unrelated info, namely, "RIP: btrfs_num_copies+0x42/0x0b" or somesuch http://marc.merlins.org/tmp/btrfs_num_copies.jpg It''s only if you have serial console, or netconsole,

I'm trying to learn about the tcltk package and its uses. Floundering around a bit ... Have discovered Peter Dalgaard's articles in R-News, which should help. Also James Wettenhall's suite of examples look like they might be enlightening, even though the indications are that they are Windoze oriented. Be that as it were, I decided to fool around a bit with Tcl/Tk *outside* of R to

Having implemented a GC for HLVM, I am now turning my attention to implementing a GC that supports parallelism. To do this, I would like to use atomic instructions as well as mutexes. What is the status of LLVM's atomic instrinsics (e.g. CAS)? Is anyone using them in real projects? I realised that an obvious test would be to compile some simple example programs with llvm-g++ instead of

Hi All, With the help of Chuck Tuffli, I'm now able to use CTL to export a zvol over FC to a Linux host: LUN Backend Size (Blocks) BS Serial Number Device ID 0 block 4185915392 512 FBSDZFS001 ORA_ASM_01 lun_type=0 num_threads=14 file=/dev/zvol/tank/oracle_asm_01 1 block 4185915392 512 FBSDZFS002 ORA_ASM_02

Hi Nick: Thanks for pointing me to libffi. Recompile LLVM with libffi does solve the problem of printf. But it still has other problems: 1) sinf() returns 0 in the interpreter, but returns correct value in JIT (see hellosin.c) 2) calling pthread_create cause lli to crash in the interpreter mode, but no problem in JIT (see phello.c). My questions are: i) can I call any arbitrary external function

Hi Sanjoy, Yes, that's exactly what we have been looking at recently here, but the region tags seem to make it possible to express the control flow as well, so I think we could start with reg ions+metadata, as Hal and Xinmin proposed, and then figure out what needs to be first class instructions. --Vikram Adve > On Jan 19, 2017, at 11:03 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at

Nilesh M. Vaghela Research Scholar c/o Prof. N. V. Sastry, Department of Chemistry, Sardar Patel University Vallabhvidyanagar-388 120 Gujarat, India --- On Thu, 29/7/10, Kurt Hornik <Kurt.Hornik@wu.ac.at> wrote: From: Kurt Hornik <Kurt.Hornik@wu.ac.at> Subject: Re: R statical-script for analysis (India) To: "Nilesh Vaghela" <nilesh_spu25@yahoo.in> Cc:

This series adds new APIs to support btrfstune. Chen Hanxiao (2): New API: btrfs-image New API: btrfs_image_restore daemon/btrfs.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ generator/actions.ml | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ src/MAX_PROC_NR | 2 +- 3 files changed, 133 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.1.0

> On Jan 20, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Tian, Xinmin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Sanjoy, the IR would be like something below. It is ok to hoist alloca instruction outside the region. There are some small changes in optimizer to understand region-annotation intrinsic. > > { void main() { > i32* val = alloca i32 > tok =

Xu Yang wrote: > Hi Nick: > > The first problem have been solved by calling llvm-ld: > > $ llvm-ld -o hellosin.llvm hellosin.bc -lm > $ lli -force-interpreter=true -load=/usr/lib/libm.so hellosin.llvm.bc > hello sin: 0.50 Only because the optimizer saw sin(constant) and folded it away. The entire program became 'print constant string'. There is certainly a bug

> On Jan 20, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Tian, Xinmin <xinmin.tian at intel.com> wrote: > >>>>> This means that the optimizer has to be aware of it, I’m missing the magic here? > > This is one option. > > The another option is that, as I mentioned in our LLVM-HPC paper in our implementation. We have a "prepare phase for pre-privatization" can be invoked

Hi, Le 02/10/2012 19:29, Hal Finkel a écrit : > On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:56:50 -0700 > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> On Oct 1, 2012, at 10:37 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:26:54 -0700 >>> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >>>> On Oct 1, 2012, at 6:16 PM, greened at

Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: > Nick Lewycky<nicholas at mxc.ca> writes: >> The interpreter uses libffi to make external function calls. However, it >> needs to be detected at LLVM's compile time. If you're using the >> released packages, we disabled that because we were worried about users >> who don't have libffi installed. > > This seems to be

Hi, I'm going to club together some responses. I agree that outlining function sub-bodies and passing in the function pointers to said outlined bodies to OpenMP helpers lets us correctly implement the semantics we need. However, unless I severely misunderstood the thread, I thought the key idea was to move *away* from that representation and towards a representation that _allows_

Hi Nick: The first problem have been solved by calling llvm-ld: $ llvm-ld -o hellosin.llvm hellosin.bc -lm $ lli -force-interpreter=true -load=/usr/lib/libm.so hellosin.llvm.bc hello sin: 0.50 The pthread problem remains after llvm-ld: $ lli -force-interpreter=true -load=/lib/libpthread.so.0 phello.llvm.bc 0 lli 0x08796bf8 Segmentation fault For those who are getting "invalid

> On Jan 31, 2017, at 5:38 PM, Tian, Xinmin <xinmin.tian at intel.com> wrote: > >>>>> Ok, but this looks like a “workaround" for your specific use-case, I don’t see how it can scale as a model-agnostic and general-purpose region semantic. > > I would say it is a design trade-off. I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same thing here: my understanding at

Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> writes: > The interpreter uses libffi to make external function calls. However, it > needs to be detected at LLVM's compile time. If you're using the > released packages, we disabled that because we were worried about users > who don't have libffi installed. This seems to be quite a common problem (I too hit it once, thought it

On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:56:50 -0700 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2012, at 10:37 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:26:54 -0700 > > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> On Oct 1, 2012, at 6:16 PM, greened at obbligato.org wrote: > >>

>>>>Ok, but this looks like a “workaround" for your specific use-case, I don’t see how it can scale as a model-agnostic and general-purpose region semantic. I would say it is a design trade-off. Regardless it is a new instruction or an intrinsics with token/tag, it will consist of model-agnostic part and model-non-agnostic part. The package comes with a framework for parsing

Hi, Sorry for the hiatus, busy time at my university. :) After a false start and some (hopefully cogent) thought, I am now of the opinion that it will be better to have llvm natively support a somewhat different notion of parallel computation and have the frontend lower OpenMP directives (and possibly other such things) into the same. In short, I propose a intrinsic based approach which hinges