similar to: [LLVMdev] Possible missed optimization? 2.0

On Sep 4, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Borja Ferrer wrote: > I've noticed this pattern happening with other operators aswell, but used xor in this example. As i said before, i tried with different register allocation orders, but it will produce always the same result. GCC is emitting longer code, but since LLVM is so nearer to the optimal code sequence i wanted to reach it. In LLVM, copies are

While migrating my codebase from llvm-2.6 to llvm-2.7, I found a different behaviour in the register allocation. I have been able to reproduce it using the msp430 backend, with the 2.7 release as well as the svn head. For the msp430, the first four parameters of a function are passed thru registers. What I observe is that if those parameters are not used inside the function, those registers can

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 02:23:52PM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote: >While YAJL mostly works fine, it did not see any active development in >the latest 3 years. OTOH, Jansson is another JSON C implementation, >with a very liberal license, and a much nicer API. > >Hence, switch all of libguestfs from YAJL to Jansson: >- configure checks, and buildsystem in general >- packages pulled

Am 2015-09-17 09:29, schrieb Pasi K?rkk?inen: > > Are you using nfs over UDP or TCP ? > TCP, but Network cant be the bottleneck, have tested it with iperf between bare metal/domU's and the nfs domU and it was perfectly fast... > > I don't think. > > > If you used NFS over UDP, try running it over TCP. no I use it over TCP... > > What does

As a preparation to making Hyper-V TSC page suitable for vDSO move the TSC page reading logic to asm/mshyperv.h. While on it, do the following - Document the reading algorithm. - Simplify the code a bit. - Add explicit READ_ONCE() to not rely on 'volatile'. - Add explicit barriers to prevent re-ordering (we need to read sequence strictly before and after) - Use mul_u64_u64_shr() instead

Chris Lattner wrote: > > > I'm not sure either. Can you send the code before and after register > > > allocation? > > > > Attached. > > Okay, yeah the spill code looks right. The local allocator can't keep > virtual registers in physical registers across basic blocks. As such, the > vregs are spilled at the end of the entry block and then

While YAJL mostly works fine, it did not see any active development in the latest 3 years. OTOH, Jansson is another JSON C implementation, with a very liberal license, and a much nicer API. Hence, switch all of libguestfs from YAJL to Jansson: - configure checks, and buildsystem in general - packages pulled in the appliance - actual implementations - contrib scripts - documentation This also

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: > > > Thanks, this works! I don't yet understand why spill code is needed there > > > at all, but I'll return to that when I have branches working correctly. > > > > I'm not sure either. Can you send the code before and after register > > allocation? > > Attached. Okay, yeah

Chris Lattner wrote: > > Thanks, this works! I don't yet understand why spill code is needed there > > at all, but I'll return to that when I have branches working correctly. > > I'm not sure either. Can you send the code before and after register > allocation? Attached. > You might also try -regalloc=linearscan, as the default > allocator is, uhhh,

Hi, recently, there was a discussion in the development list of libvirt on switching to a different JSON library than YAJL [1]. Since we use YAJL, and the points there IMHO apply to libguestfs as well, I decided to give a try in switching to Jansson [2]. The result IMHO is nice, with the additional APIs of Jansson that simplify some of our code. Unlike with YAJL, I did not set a minimum

Hi, merge window is about to close so I hope it's OK to make another try here. Changes since v2: - Add explicit READ_ONCE() to not rely on 'volatile' [Andy Lutomirski] - rdtsc() -> rdtsc_ordered() [Andy Lutomirski] - virt_rmb() -> smp_rmb() [Thomas Gleixner, Andy Lutomirski] Thomas, Andy, it seems the only blocker for the series was the ambiguity with TSC page read algorithm.

Hi, merge window is about to close so I hope it's OK to make another try here. Changes since v2: - Add explicit READ_ONCE() to not rely on 'volatile' [Andy Lutomirski] - rdtsc() -> rdtsc_ordered() [Andy Lutomirski] - virt_rmb() -> smp_rmb() [Thomas Gleixner, Andy Lutomirski] Thomas, Andy, it seems the only blocker for the series was the ambiguity with TSC page read algorithm.

Hi, while we're still waiting for a definitive ACK from Microsoft that the algorithm is good for SMP case (as we can't prevent the code in vdso from migrating between CPUs) I'd like to send v2 with some modifications to keep the discussion going. Changes since v1: - Document the TSC page reading protocol [Thomas Gleixner]. - Separate the TSC page reading code from

Hi, while we're still waiting for a definitive ACK from Microsoft that the algorithm is good for SMP case (as we can't prevent the code in vdso from migrating between CPUs) I'd like to send v2 with some modifications to keep the discussion going. Changes since v1: - Document the TSC page reading protocol [Thomas Gleixner]. - Separate the TSC page reading code from

This was posted not too long ago on sci.crypt... Enjoy... I think the most relevant information is near the top, but it''s all quite good... :-) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- There is no intrinsic difference between algorithm and data, the same information can be viewed as data in one context and as algorithm in another. Why then do so many people claim that encryption algorithms