similar to: [LLVMdev] About LLVM switch instruction

Hi Mark, This will workaround the problem of "default" branch restriction on the switch instruction. The trouble with this technique is that it will trump later optimization phases such as constant propagation. When a block was part of a case, because of the knowledge of the case value, the block was a candidate for better optimization. However, when we move the body of the case into

Hongbin Can you elaborate more on your suggestion? I am not sure I fully understand what you suggested. -Milind On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Milind, > > Maybe you could annotate the default case value as metadata to the swith > instruction. > > Thanks > Hongbin > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:09 PM,

Hi Milind, Maybe you could annotate the default case value as metadata to the swith instruction. Thanks Hongbin On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Milind Chabbi <Milind.Chabbi at rice.edu>wrote: > Hi Mark, > > This will workaround the problem of "default" branch restriction on > the switch instruction. The trouble with this technique is that it > will trump later

On Jul 17, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Milind Chabbi <Milind.Chabbi at rice.edu> wrote: > I am performing a transformation that requires changing the targets of > a basic block ending with a switch instruction. > In particular, I need to delete the edge that goes to the "default" > basic block. > But, LLVM switch instruction always wants a default target basic block > for a

Hi Milind, My suggestion just for your concern that if you eliminate the default block, a block associated with a case value will become the default block of the swhich instruction, since a switch instruction always requires a default block. But when a block associated with a case value become the default block, the associated case value is lost and may confuse the later optimizations such as

On Jul 17, 2013, at 10:09 PM, Milind Chabbi <Milind.Chabbi at rice.edu> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > This will workaround the problem of "default" branch restriction on > the switch instruction. The trouble with this technique is that it > will trump later optimization phases such as constant propagation. > When a block was part of a case, because of the knowledge of

Hi Hal, I have filed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780 -Milind On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Milind, > > Have you filed a bug on this? If not, can you please open a bug report (http://llvm.org/bugs)? > > -Hal > > ----- Original Message ----- >> I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode

Hi, I don't see the LLVM bug I filed (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780) making any progress. Can someone suggest me whether the bug is in the correct state? -Milind On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Milind Chabbi <Milind.Chabbi at rice.edu> wrote: > Hi Hal, > > I have filed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780 > > -Milind > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at

I think you can also avoid the RDF computation using a more directed form of control dependence testing such as described in Keshav Pingali and Gianfranco Bilardi. 1997. Optimal control dependence computation and the Roman chariots problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 19, 3 (May 1997), 462-491. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/256167.256217 However one challenge seems to be fixing the SSA graph

All, I have some code that looks like the following: { double a, b, c; for (...) { ... a = lots of FP math; b = lots of FP math; c = lots of FP math; if (cond) { a = 0.0; b = 0.1; c = 0.2; } ... } } Could we not convert the hammock into a diamond and move the initial computation of a, b, and c into the else block. Something like this: {

Thanks, Mark. I will give the paper a look. On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Mark Lacey <mark.lacey at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Chad, > > On Aug 6, 2013, at 7:46 AM, Chad Rosier <chad.rosier at gmail.com> wrote: > > > All, > > I have some code that looks like the following: > > > > { > > double a, b, c; > > for (...) { > >

Hi Chad, On Aug 6, 2013, at 7:46 AM, Chad Rosier <chad.rosier at gmail.com> wrote: > All, > I have some code that looks like the following: > > { > double a, b, c; > for (...) { > ... > a = lots of FP math; > b = lots of FP math; > c = lots of FP math; > if (cond) { > a = 0.0; > b = 0.1; > c = 0.2; >

Hi all, In a conversation between me, Milind and Csaba, Milind pointed out fadvise(2) [1] and its potential benefits to Glusterfs' caching translators like read-ahead etc. After discussing about it, we agreed that our performance translators can leverage the hints to provide better performance. Now the question is how commonly applications actually provide hints? Is it something that is used

Thanks Milind, Yes I?m hanging out for CentOS?s Storage / Gluster SIG to release the packages for 3.12.1, I can see the packages were built a week ago but they?re still not on the repo :( -- Sam > On 18 Sep 2017, at 9:57 pm, Milind Changire <mchangir at redhat.com> wrote: > > Sam, > You might want to give glusterfs-3.12.1 a try instead. > > > >> On Fri, Sep

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:47:47AM -0400, Raghavendra Gowdappa wrote: > Hi all, > > In a conversation between me, Milind and Csaba, Milind pointed out > fadvise(2) [1] and its potential benefits to Glusterfs' caching > translators like read-ahead etc. After discussing about it, we agreed > that our performance translators can leverage the hints to provide > better

FYI - I've been testing the Gluster 3.12.1 packages with the help of the SIG maintainer and I can confirm that the logs are no longer being filled with NFS or null client errors after the upgrade. -- Sam McLeod @s_mcleod https://smcleod.net > On 18 Sep 2017, at 10:14 pm, Sam McLeod <mailinglists at smcleod.net> wrote: > > Thanks Milind, > > Yes I?m hanging out for

On 08/11/2017 04:51 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:47:47AM -0400, Raghavendra Gowdappa wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> In a conversation between me, Milind and Csaba, Milind pointed out >> fadvise(2) [1] and its potential benefits to Glusterfs' caching >> translators like read-ahead etc. After discussing about it, we agreed >> that our

Hello Admins, can i have full steps to install on centos x86_64. Thnx in advance -- Regards, Milind -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20070617/dae04f8d/attachment-0001.html>

Herb, I'm trying to weed out issues here. So, I can see quota turned *on* and would like you to check the quota settings and test to see system behavior *if quota is turned off*. Although the file size that failed migration was 29K, I'm being a bit paranoid while weeding out issues. Are you still facing tiering errors ? I can see your response to Alex with the disk space consumption and

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Milind Changire" <mchangir at redhat.com> > To: "Serkan ?oban" <cobanserkan at gmail.com> > Cc: "Gluster Users" <gluster-users at gluster.org> > Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2017 11:44:40 PM > Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Glusterd proccess hangs on reboot > > No worries Serkan, > You can