similar to: [LLVMdev] Google Summer of Code Projects

On Tuesday 22 April 2008, Chris Lattner wrote: > [llvmir] "Software Transactional Memory (STM) support in LLVM" by > Luis Felipe Strano Hi, I'd like to know more about the directions for the STM project. Somewhat contrary to what the project's abstract states, there are open C/C++ based implementations for compiler support for memory transactions. Besides some

First of all, I'd like to thank the entire LLVM team for this opportunity. Torvald, google only displays the abstract on the results page, but I do know about Tanger and it was mentioned in both the proposal and the comments that followed, I'll write an email to you later with that info in a bit, and I do intend to use as much available infrastructure as possible, and tanger/tinystm are

I would like to announce the availability of compiler support for generation of transactional code in LLVM IR. Our tool is called Tanger and it is an LLVM pass. You can download Tanger at: http://tinystm.org Transactional memory (TM) is viewed by a lot of people to be an important tool for enabling parallelism in a wide area of applications, and especially for developers that are not skilled

Torvald, This is nice work. Do you have a set of applications or benchmarks that you have transactionalized at the source level? If so, have you reported performance numbers for them somewhere? Thanks, --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.org On Aug 19, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote: > I would like to announce the availability of compiler support for >

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > It sounds like you're doing something STM like, have you contacted > Torvald to see if he has ideas or insight? > http://llvm.org/pubs/2008-02-23-TRANSACT-TangerObjBased.html Yeah, this is TM-like with the begin/end/abort+rollback. Thanks for the pointer, but it seems like Tanger's

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > No. The reason we don't allow this is because it violates the CFG. So if I *don't* violate the CFG, would I still need to do something close to "big and nasty"? ; save the address of %otherPath to use later call @llvm.checkpoint(label %otherPath) ; trick the rest of the compiler to

On Apr 19, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Edward Lee wrote: > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> > wrote: >> No. The reason we don't allow this is because it violates the CFG. > So if I *don't* violate the CFG, would I still need to do something > close to "big and nasty"? It sounds like you're doing something STM like, have

Greetings! Short version: -------------- I cannot rename or delete the directories that have been used in the past (i.e. files or subdirectories created within). Everything else is fine, renamable, deletable. All files (regardless wethder created before or after), all directories created after the first one. I was not able to find any hint on that - neither Google, nor UseNet archive(via

Hi all, I did a performance test of two real applications (FFMPEG and GTK) on ARM. For more details see: http://laurovenancio.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/llvm-perf-tests/ Lauro

Hi, I have two related questions: Are there LLVM developers on this list that are interested in improving LLVM performance? I have examples in which LLVM is slower than gcc (e.g., STM linked list microbenchmark, 1.8 (gcc) vs. 1.3 (llvm), more is better). I've never done compiler performance tuning, so I don't know how much effort is required. Second question: does anyone keep track

hello, we are interested in using rubytorrent as a project in a hackfest we''re organizing, and I would like to know if you have any idea of stuff that needs to be done, or something like it. Thanks, --lf

On Tuesday 26 October 2010 14:33:02 Duncan Sands wrote: > > transaction properties (eg, virtually atomic + isolated execution) for > > ordinary program code. Thus, to make incrementing a counter thread-safe, > > you could say __transaction { counter++; } and the compiler would > > transform this code so that it uses a TM library, which in turn does > > concurrency

Hi, I seemingly have a simple problem, but I've spend hours reading guides & posts on this forum and I can't seem to piece together what I need. I have a dataframe where I want to divide it into two subsets: a sample, and the remainder of the dataframe in a new frame. I've tried this: split(df, sample(nrow(df), size=100, replace=FALSE)) another way would be to make a new

I need to generate a minimal Samba working in a SH4 cpu in a STLinux 2.3 environment. The goal is to have very very simple Samba server running in a STLinux environment. STLinux Kernel has included the CIFS support. Really I'm a newbie in Samba cross-compilation. And obviously I've problems :-( Any help will be appreciated. Thanks :-) 1) First of all I've set some env vars: export

Hi, llvm emits code for "memcpy" on ARM as consecutive ldr/str commands, and further combines them into ldm/stm with special pass after register allocation. But ldm/stm commands require registers to go in ascending order, what is often not so after regalloc, therefore some str/ldr commands. For example such code: struct Foo {int a, b, c, d; } void CopyStruct(struct Foo *a, struct

09.02.2011 18:57, Jason Kim пишет: > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Vasiliy Korchagin > <vasiliy.korchagin at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> llvm emits code for "memcpy" on ARM as consecutive ldr/str commands, and > > Hmm, this happens elsewhere as well (x86?). Perhaps what we need is a > switch to disable memset/memcpy lowering? > Do you

On 06/22/2017 08:06 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > The redundant fb helper .load_lut is no longer used, and can not > work right without also providing the fb helpers .gamma_set and > .gamma_get thus rendering the code in this driver suspect. > Hi Peter, STM32 chipsets supports 8-bit CLUT mode but this driver version does not support it "yet" (final patch has not been upstreamed

-fno-builtin is the flag you want. deep On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Корчагин Василий <vasiliy.korchagin at gmail.com> wrote: > 09.02.2011 18:57, Jason Kim пишет: >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Vasiliy Korchagin >> <vasiliy.korchagin at gmail.com>  wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> llvm emits code for "memcpy" on ARM as consecutive

Hi, I have a dataset called 'fish'. fish$Species returns extract 1. When I use fish$Species != c("CRA","PHC"), i.e. I want all species except "CRA" and "PHC", I get extract 2 which is blatantly wrong. Can anyone see what I'm doing wrong? Regards, James EXTRACT 1 > fish$Species [1] ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB ALB

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Sarah Thompson wrote: > ideally, I'd like a block that encompasses everything from the function > parameters up to the current top-of-stack including spilled registers. > Is this feasible? Hi Sarah, I'm not sure how much of this is possible. You're guaranteed that each function stack frame is itself contiguous (including spilled regs), but there