similar to: [LLVMdev] RFC: Plugable intrinsics

In LiveIntervals::processImplicitDefs() we have this: for (MachineRegisterInfo::use_iterator UI = mri_->use_begin(Reg), UE = mri_->use_end(); UI != UE; ) { MachineOperand &RMO = UI.getOperand(); MachineInstr *RMI = &*UI; ++UI; MachineBasicBlock *RMBB = RMI->getParent(); if (RMBB == MBB) continue; const

On Jul 17, 2009, at 7:57 AM, David Greene wrote: > In LiveIntervals::processImplicitDefs() we have this: > > for (MachineRegisterInfo::use_iterator UI = mri_->use_begin(Reg), > UE = mri_->use_end(); UI != UE; ) { > MachineOperand &RMO = UI.getOperand(); > MachineInstr *RMI = &*UI; > ++UI; > MachineBasicBlock *RMBB

In my work with a simple localization plugin, i''m running into a lot of places in the Rails core, where text and other localization specific information is hardcoded. I''ve included some examples in the bottom of this post. It''s hard for an outsider to know, if the hardcoded values are a result of inconsistency in code, or "by design". I hope that we can have

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Daniel M Gessel <gessel at apple.com> wrote: > Thanks - that solves both problems. > > In the future, HW may have built in ADDE support, but will likely > still not have flags - it'll just read 3 registers and write two. > > Any thoughts there? Yes. What I think should happen is flags need to be less of a hack. There are two cases,

hi Wei-Ren, i got it, i have to add a "typedef int uint;" that's not a big problem thank you -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/donot-support-uint-datatype-tp52523p52528.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hi, I am sure it has been discussed extensively somewhere, but I cannot find a satisfactory solution so far. We have a samba3 PDC running with Win7 machines (with the right hacks) without problems. We have been asked to add an old WinXP machine to the network but without success so far. The setup is as follow: Server : Samba 3.6.3 on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Clients: Win 7 Ultimate (working) &

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=466 Summary: u.tcp used where u.udp should be, in tftp nat helper Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P2 Component: NAT AssignedTo: laforge@netfilter.org

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 05:30:46PM -0800, Dong Chen wrote: > hi Wei-Ren, > i got it, i have to add a "typedef int uint;" > that's not a big problem Souldn't you use "typedef unsigned uint"? -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taiwan (R.O.C.) Tel:886-2-2788-3799 #1667 Homepage:

Hi, Just made a simple test to see how the two extensions (s and i) worked but for some reason I can't seem to make then act as I would like them to. I pick up the phone and dials 100 or 200 - and in the CLI it prints out what ever I have put in the Noop() If i dial any other number, nothing happens - no indication in the CLI. Souldn't the s or i context be activated when I dial a

Thanks very much for your help. I didn't quite understand how adde really uses flags in, say x86 or any of the other architectures I looked at. It seemed to declare it used EFLAGS, but little else: like how would you feed a zero in for the carry. Or I suppose you would have to start such a sequence off with an addc, and I happened to hit the adde (and it bailed) first (because the

Hi Xinhui, 2016-06-28 22:43 GMT+08:00 Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: > This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks > implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. Currently > kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It take the cpu > as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then kernel can

Hi Xinhui, 2016-06-28 22:43 GMT+08:00 Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: > This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks > implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. Currently > kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It take the cpu > as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then kernel can

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, Misha Brukman wrote: > > A possible view of intrinsics could be "operations that don't depend > > on the target architecture, but instead on the language runtime". But > > then wouldn't malloc/free be intrinsics? > > Good question. Due to the amount of pointer/data analysis in LLVM, it > is often necessary to consider memory

Warren Young wrote: > [...] >>> What do they suggest as a replacement? > > Stratis: https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf Can I use that now? > The main downside to Stratis I see is that it looks like 1.0 is scheduled to coincide with RHEL 8, based on the release dates of RHELs past, which means it won?t have any kind of redundant storage options to

On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 01:17:19AM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > The one advantage that mallocinst has over using an intrnisic is that > instructions can have different return values in various parts of the > program (e.g., you can write 'malloc int' instead of > '(int*)malloc(4)'). OK, then you could say that the *real* advantage of the malloc/alloca instructions is

On page 22 of the R-introduction guide it's written: the quadratic form x^{'} A^{-1} x which is used in multivariate computations, should be computed by something like x%*%solve(A,x), rather than computing the inverse of A. Why isn't it good to compute t(x) %*% solve(A) %*% x? Thanks a lot for help!

On Tue, 2016-06-28 at 10:43 -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: > This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks > implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. Currently > kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It take the cpu ^^ takes > as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then kernel can break > the spin

On Tue, 2016-06-28 at 10:43 -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: > This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks > implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. Currently > kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It take the cpu ^^ takes > as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then kernel can break > the spin

Hi all We're considering getting some Powerware 9355-30-M-0 UPSes to replace some older ones, so I wonder if it would be possible to use NUT for this. It seems 9315 is supported, but AFAICS that's the top model. Thanks roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 roy at karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det

-- 此致 礼 罗勇刚 Yours sincerely, Yonggang Luo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161115/80fd3c17/attachment.html>