similar to: PCI Passthrough

I am in the process of getting multiple Desktops to run linuxfor Research and Development, at the moment am comparing the following intel chipset H81, Q87, Q77, H61...What is the difference?What would be best performance issue?

Hi, I have a guest enabled vIOMMU, but on the guest there are several devices in the same iommu group. Could someone help to check if I missed something? Thank you very much! 1. guest xml: # virsh edit q ... <os> <type arch='x86_64' machine='pc-q35-rhel7.5.0'>hvm</type> <loader readonly='yes' secure='yes'

Hi llvm-dev We believe we have completed enough of the agreed pre-upstreaming changes to start talking about merging F18 into LLVM. The live status is tracked at [1]. There are a few details that we have not managed to hammer out and we propose to tackle inside the LLVM monorepo. I have put a summary of these at the bottom of this mail. Does anyone have any objections to flang being merged into

Hi Mehdi, I can't replicate those failures at my end, could you let me know what OS, compiler and CMake flags you're using so I can try and reproduce? Thanks! David Truby ________________________________ From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Sent: 07 April 2020 06:44 To: Richard Barton

Hi, everyone, As you may know, NVIDIA has developed an open-source Fortran frontend for LLVM (http://flang-compiler.org), which consists of the flang frontend itself along with the corresponding Fortran runtime library. The existing frontend's code is mostly written in C, and while a production-quality implementation, does not follow modern software-engineering practices. Our long-standing

Attached is the log. I'm building with: clang version 10.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/ 3a6da1122b990386edeba0987d0d1fdc9c8dc53d) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix On some Ubuntu-like distribution. I also ran with ASAN once and it found a bunch of leaks in bin/tco. Best, -- Mehdi On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:36 AM Richard Barton <Richard.Barton at

Hi All, The flang project (a Fortran compiler) is getting ready to join the monorepo. We intend to preserve the existing history by rewriting the existing commits as a linear series of commits on top of llvm-project. I understand the flang community would like to do this before the LLVM 10 branch in due in mid January, so please speak up soon if you see anything needing fixing in what I

Hi llvm-dev It's been a few weeks since I last gave an update on F18 and our progress on readying it for inclusion into the monorepo. Last time we discussed this the community challenged us to make the F18 source code look more like an LLVM project and to come up with a plan and schedule for completing this work (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-January/137989.html) The full

Hello, This is regarding recent/ongoing discussions about F18 being merged in LLVM. I was going through these threads, and I found few important points which were possibly left unanswered (or I might have missed few threads). URL: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/flang-dev/2019-December/000120.html Point: Is (3) AST -> FIR -> MLIR LLVM-IR -> LLVM-IR) in a shape where we can

Following up on my earlier email. If there is a commitment to checking in f18 already, feel free to disregard it. I went and took a little bit closer look at the sources and want to share some of the findings in case if anyone is interested. Disclosure: I contribute to Fort <http://fort-compiler.org/> (fort-compiler.org), which is the fork of the front-end David Greene mentioned. From

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 5:46 PM Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM Stephen Scalpone via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> * The current f18 code will be committed to the new LLVM subproject. The >> f18 code is a set of libraries that implements the Fortran compiler. >>

Hi all F18 merging has finished so commit access should be back to normal. Thanks Rich > -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Richard > Barton via llvm-dev > Sent: 9 April, 2020 16:08 > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: [llvm-dev] F18 upstreaming Now! > > Hi all > > We are about to merge F18

Hi Eric, Renato Thanks again for the engagement and challenge on this, it is really useful feedback to know what we need to do to get F18 into the project in a way that everyone is happy with. I have tried to give timelines on the points addressed below where I can today. Clearly we need to do some work on points 8-11, but are the above plans/answers to points 1-7 sufficient at this stage and

Can you elaborate on this? - to move the std::string/string_view/StringRef changes to pre-merge unless you're going to have someone dedicated to handling them post-merge (rather than "time permits"). The C vs C++ ism here is fairly strong and I'd like to get the C-style string handling out fairly quickly. I understood this item to be looking into replacing uses of std::string

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:45 PM Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM Stephen Scalpone via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> * The current f18 code will be committed to the new LLVM subproject. The >> f18 code is a set of libraries that implements the Fortran compiler. >>

Hi Eric, Old flang certainly uses C-style strings but f18 uses std::string with few exceptions. Most of the instances in f18 of “char *” aren’t really strings in the C sense – they’re not null terminated and are really just pointers into raw or cooked source files/streams. I can’t think of an instance where the compiler dynamically allocates an array of characters and uses it as a C string. -

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 06:50, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > I don't really consider this addressed without a plan of action (before merge) that contains a list of standard llvm support libraries that would be used in addition to things being removed (pretty much all use of C++ c* headers and more?) as well as staffing and approximate ETAs. Agreed. > I think

Hi all Thanks for all the replies and engagement on this issue. First point, given the state of discussions today I would like to propose that we don't start the merge at 10:00 GMT on Monday 13th as proposed and we delay by at least 24 hours until after the scheduled F18 technical call on Monday afternoon. In order to help compile a plan of action, I've tried to compile a list of the

"Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > And then there is also the argument for reusing Clang tooling, > which David Greene keeps making, though that idea does not seem to > get a lot of interest. > > > I disagree. There's been a lot of interest in modeling Flang's tooling > after Clang's