similar to: CMake support for Opus proposal (in addition to Autotools)

Hi, Thanks for the quick feedback I have changed the name to avoid conflict. Attached is the updated patch. //Marcus ________________________________ From: Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 00:07 To: Marcus Asteborg; opus at xiph.org Subject: Re: [opus] CMake support for Opus proposal (in addition to Autotools) Hi Marcus, There seems to be a conflict

Right that I had completely missed, I have added the files and verified that it builds with CMake from the tar on Linux (out of the git repo) I am parsing the package_version file from the tarball if it exists so it should maintain the version info. //Marcus ________________________________ From: Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 11:38 To: Marcus

Thanks, it applies now. I think you'd also want to add some (all?) of these files to EXTRA_DIST in Makefile.am, otherwise your cmake files won't be included in release tarballs, which are generate using "make dist". To test, you should try running run "make dist" to generate a tarball yourself. From there, you try building the contents with your cmake files and see if

Hi, It looks like cmake currently defaults to no optimization, which I think is a bit unexpected for most users. I don't know how to do that in cmake, but it would be good to default to a "release" build with optimizations. Can you have a patch to do that? Also, is there a way to manually add flags to the compiler (like setting CFLAGS with autotools)? Cheers, Jean-Marc On

Tengo un vector de fechas en formato R: > fechas <- c(?2016-07-15?, ?2016-10-12?, ?2017-02-11?) quiero que las fechas de 2017 (la tercera del vector del ejemplo) pasen a ser NA > fechas2 <- ifelse(fechas > ?2016-12-31?, NA, fechas) El problema que me encuentro es que el resultado (fechas2) es un vector numérico y no un vector de fechas. No encuentro la solución. Se agradecen

Hi Hamilton, I personally don't believe the effort to make the IR "parallelism-aware" is worth it right now. What I propose is something else, see for example https://youtu.be/zfiHaPaoQPc and the OpenMPOpt pass. There are multiple bigger tasks towards better offloading, one of which is described here https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/180 It might be interesting to add the

Hi there Johannes!, I was checking out the issue (about latency hiding when transferring memory from host to device) you posted about a week ago, but it's not there anymore. Did you remove it?. Thanks. Hamilton. On 21/03/20 10:04 p. m., Hamilton Tobon Mosquera via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi there!, > > Right now I'm starting with the project proposed by Johannes here: >

Ahhh I understand. So I believe the project you posted is still opened. Do you any advice on the question I posted before?. Thank you. On 22/03/20 1:26 p. m., Doerfert, Johannes wrote: > I did not. The issues sections on GH was removed. > > ________________________________________ > From: Hamilton Tobon Mosquera <htobonm at eafit.edu.co> > Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 12:21

Hi Johannes, Yes, I'm highly interested, I already started. It would be nice if you post the details again. I didn't take note of them, I was always looking at the issue in GH. The problem I'm facing right now is this: The first task is identifying OpenMP API calls referred to device memory allocation. I first understood how the compiler driver orchestrates the process of offloading

Sorry, what does "PC" mean here? ________________________________ From: Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 7:27 AM To: Jordan Rudd; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Passing stack pointer to statepoint-gc Jordon, First of all, StackMaps are keyed by PC, not by SP. Each entry corresponds to given location within the

Hi Johannes, Sorry about the failing tests. I completely forgot about running all of them, I only ran the tests for the openmp ipo transforms. I found the GH issue in cache. I can post it here if you want. I analyzed these runtime calls, __tgt_target_teams_[nowait]. What I don't understand about the problem we want to solve (splitting the memory transfer into issue and wait and legally

Hi Johannes, I've been thinking on how to implement a solution for the problem and I have some questions: 1. You mention in the problem description that the current asynchronous functions can be used, and probably modified. The problem is that those runtime functions with _nowait at the end are not asynchronous. Looking at their implementations, they just wait for other tasks is there

Hi Johannes, In order to create the testcases with the FIXMEs showing how it should look after the transformation, I've been trying to come up with a way of splitting the runtime call __tgt_target_teams based on Silei's recent patch D77005. I like the idea of using its asynchronous version __tgt_target_teams_nowait, but I think we would have to modify it, either to return the

Hi all, With some downtime it's time for some CMake fixes. Most critically is the SSE fixes to avoid crashes that is described in 154 and 132 in github. Patch 5 should address this and also adding APPROX-FLOAT option. Hopefully this can give some gains for those of us running on Windows servers.j I went through the pull request and picked out a few that will ease up integration for

Hi there!, As part of my application process to the next GSoC I'm working on the TODO in OpenMPOpt.cpp line 437:     // TODO: We should validate the declaration agains the types we expect.     Link: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/OpenMPOpt.cpp#L437 I have a question. When there is a mismatch in the types (return type or argument types) between

Hi Simon, CMake 3.14 add support for crosscompiling iOS, tvOS and watchOS https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.14/manual/cmake-toolchains.7.html#cross-compiling-for-ios-tvos-or-watchos Can you clarify what your patch does? //Marcus cmake-toolchains(7) — CMake 3.14.7 Documentation<https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.14/manual/cmake-toolchains.7.html#cross-compiling-for-ios-tvos-or-watchos> The

Hi Simon, Please create a pull request here: https://github.com/xnorpx/opus/pulls Also please add a buildconfig here that exercise the BUILD_FRAMEWORK option: https://github.com/xnorpx/opus/blob/master/.github/workflows/build.yml [https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/302709?s=400&v=4]<https://github.com/xnorpx/opus/blob/master/.github/workflows/build.yml>

Sorry about that, let me check the correct version for the intrin0.h include guard. //Marcus ________________________________ From: Ralph Giles <giles at thaumas.net> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 19:31 To: Marcus Asteborg <xnorpx at outlook.com>; opus at xiph.org <opus at xiph.org> Subject: Re: [opus] Misc patches Speaking of needing more complete ci feedback, the intrin0.h

Hi, I'm trying to use the statepoint-example strategy to build a simple garbage collector. After using the PlaceSafepoints and RewriteStatepointsForGC passes, I can successfully generate a stack map in my binary and call into my runtime's gc poll. As far as I can tell, I need the stack pointer at the point of the poll to find the correct frame in the stack map. I'm having trouble

Hi, I have just installed Ubuntu 19.04 (Disco Dingo) and after adding the following repo: deb https://cloud.r-project.org/bin/linux/ubuntu disco-cran35/ and importing the keys, I want to install r-base so I perform the following: sudo apt update sudo apt install r-base Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be