similar to: [LLVMdev] [lld] Current performance issues

I am trying to debug a package to submit it to CRAN and am getting a bunch of error messages. Most of the errors are because of the Rd files which were automatically populated by the package.skeleton function. I find the section on documentation to be pretty confusion in the R Extensions manual. Any help on getting these errors fixed would be hugely appreciated. Thanks. --Markus * checking for

What is so slow here? The render takes up 8% and the queries take up 1%. That leaves 91% unaccounted for. Completed in 0.06477 (15 reqs/sec) | Rendering: 0.00574 (8%) | DB: 0.00087 (1%) | 200 OK [http://localhost/] Any help would be appreciated. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails:

I am trying to improve my application's compile-time performance. On a given workload, I take 68 seconds to compile some code. If I disable the LLVM code generation (i.e. I will generate IR instructions, but skip the LLVM optimization and instruction selection steps) then my compile time drops to 3 seconds. If I write out the LLVM IR (just to prove that I am generating it) then my compile

In r226336 I shove off 1.2 seconds out of 9.8 seconds for lld to link lld. That's done by parallelizing archive member parsing. But I realized that was not the slowest pass. The single slowest pass in LLD is LayoutPass. Only sort() at the last of Layoutpass::perform takes about 3 seconds (one third of total execution time). It is because the comparison function passed to sort, compareAtoms,

And can we make p2m memory allocation from domain heap directly? -Xin _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

I've run into some issues with the current atom object model that I would like to fix. The current 4 atoms are not expressive enough. We need to be able to serialize a larger set of atoms, many of which are format specific. The set of common atoms (shared between all formats) should be the set that the resolver requires to work. SharedLibrary is not included in this (by looking at the source

Hi Nick, I am trying to implement support for handling section groups in lld. There are two ways of figuring out section groups with ELF. a) Sections with SHF_GROUP property b) .gnu.linkonce sections (the signature identified by the name of the section) -- This was the method to coalesce similiar constants. Section Groups(SHF_GROUP) is the preferred way on ELF but .gnu.linkonce sections is

On 04/10/2016 10:27 AM, Adrian Minta wrote: > It will be nice if the "SELECT MyMailbox" command will be "SELECT > mymailbox LIMIT 100" or something, to get the first files since only the > last messages are shown to the user. SELECTing a mailbox has nothing to do with FETCHing messages, so above does not make much sense. I don't know dovecot's code, but I

On 10/30/2013 12:53 AM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: >> I am trying to implement support for handling section groups in lld. >> >> There are two ways of figuring out section groups with ELF. >> >> a) Sections with SHF_GROUP property >> b) .gnu.linkonce sections (the signature identified by the name of the section)

[PATCH 1/3] kms: Don't hardcode the output properties [PATCH 2/3] kms: Implement output->get_property when RandR1.3 is available. [PATCH 3/3] kms: Add TV-out support src/drmmode_display.c | 403 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 142 deletions(-)

So I was looking into handling ELF groups today in the Atom model. It appears that we will need to add the concept of a group to the atom model directly, as modeling it with references fails to capture some semantics. http://www.sco.com/developers/gabi/latest/ch4.sheader.html Groups in ELF are collections of sections that must be either included or excluded as a unit. They also are used to

Hi, Method RefNameBuilder::buildDuplicateNameMap() has an assert which blocks atoms with empty name. In general it looks reasonable but some toolchains (for example Sourcery CodeBench in both MIPS and ARM editions) can generate an object file contains absolute STT_FILE symbols with empty name. Moreover crt1.o object file from this toolchain has such symbol. I do not know is it a feature or bug

On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > I am trying to implement support for handling section groups in lld. > > There are two ways of figuring out section groups with ELF. > > a) Sections with SHF_GROUP property > b) .gnu.linkonce sections (the signature identified by the name of the section) -- This was the method to coalesce similiar constants. > >

Hi Nick, Thanks for your reply. The usecase here is just trying to construct a valid ELF. The lld linker needs to handle all sorts of code written in assembly as well as 'C'. The usecase is just one example of it. I have also seen similiar code in http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S?a=powerpc which has global and local labels. You are right, that the

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2012, at 4:25 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > >> So I was looking into handling ELF groups today in the Atom model. It >> appears that we will need to add the concept of a group to the atom >> model directly, as modeling it with references fails to capture some >>

Hi Nick, On 12/7/2012 4:59 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > > We have a similar requirement in darwin's ld64 linker, but even more general. Any binary can do the following to introspect itself: > > struct stuff { int a; int b; }; > > extern struct stuff* stuff_start __asm("section$start$__DATA$__my"); > extern struct stuff* stuff_end

My Junk mailbox is still filling up with hard linked emails. There are some junk mails with over 3000 hard linked files and over half a million files in the .Junk/cur folder. I had a handy script to remove them all by doing a find for inodes and sorting the list by age and keeping the olds hard link and removing all the others, but I now can?t find it :/ so I have just taken to periodically

Hi Nick, Waiting for your feedback on this. Thanks Shankar Easwaran On 11/16/2012 10:03 AM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > Hi Nick, > > Thanks for your reply. > > The usecase here is just trying to construct a valid ELF. The lld > linker needs to handle all sorts of code written in assembly as well > as 'C'. The usecase is just one example of it. > > I have also

Nobody in this long thread appears to have yet explained why it's a bad idea to allow atomic fragments of code/data (whatever you want to call them: atoms, sections, who cares) to have more than one global symbol attached to them in LLD's internal representation. That seems like it'd provide the flexibility needed for ELF without hurting MachO. If that change'd allow you to avoid

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:52:55PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > I think the problem here is that these lead to natural and inescapable > tensions, and Alex summarized how Camp B has been steering LLD away > from what Camp A people want. This isn’t bad in and of itself, because > what Camp B wants is clearly and unarguably good for LLVM. However, > it is also not sufficient, and