similar to: C++11 Move for LLVM/Clang

Hello. I''m the author of DataMapper (http://datamapper.org), and am trying to choose what Full-Text-Indexing engine/plugin I want to include by default. I was hoping you guys could help. :-) Sphinx comes highly recommended, but without live index updates, it just doesn''t seem practical for most of my work. I''m most experienced with Solr, but the whole HTTP::Request and

On 2/28/20 12:19 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Hi Nicholas, > > You might want to check out MLIR: its pass manager is already automatically and implicitly multithreaded. > > -Chris Chris, I was aware that LLVM was moving to MLIR at some point due to this. I've curious as to how MLIR deals with IPO as that's the problem I was running into. Even if you have pipelines what

Greetings All, For the last few months since the GCC Cauldron I've been researching/helping out plan for multi-threading GCC. I've posted my GCC ideas here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1po_RRgSCtRyYgMHjV0itW8iOzJXpTdHYIpC9gUMjOxk/edit as I've heard there is interest on the LLVM side as well. I've talked to some of the IBM folks from the Toronto area about it face to face

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 4:00 PM Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2/29/20 6:17 PM, River Riddle via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:25 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:19 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> >>

Am Mi., 10. Juni 2020 um 10:04 Uhr schrieb Doerfert, Johannes via flang-dev <flang-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > I'm not against a subproject *but* if we also move the existing > llvm/lib/Frontend stuff, that would introduce a dependence from > llvm-core to this project, which I think is uncommon. We could also have > both. At the end of the day it depends on the benefit we would

On 2/28/20 12:56 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 27, 2020, at 9:44 PM, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com > <mailto:xerofoify at gmail.com>> wrote: >> On 2/28/20 12:19 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> Hi Nicholas, >>> >>> You might want to check out MLIR: its pass manager is already >>> automatically and implicitly multithreaded.

On 6/11/20 3:32 AM, Andrzej Warzynski wrote: > > > On 11/06/2020 00:49, Michael Kruse wrote: >> Am Mi., 10. Juni 2020 um 10:04 Uhr schrieb Doerfert, Johannes via >> flang-dev <flang-dev at lists.llvm.org>: >>> I'm not against a subproject *but* if we also move the existing >>> llvm/lib/Frontend stuff, that would introduce a dependence from

I will preface this message by saying that I am not an R developer and no very little about R...but here is my situation: One of my users has developed a model for analysing commodity prices. At the moment when he runs this model on his daily data set it takes roughly 5 hours to complete. He is using a quad core PC with 2gb of RAM. The R process only uses 1 core..i.e. the overall CPU usage tops

On 6/11/20 4:04 PM, James Y Knight wrote: > I think the expectation is that LLVM remains at the bottom of the > dependency tree, with frontend-support depending on LLVM, and Clang and > Flang depending on frontend-support (and LLVM). > > Not everything which makes sense to share between clang and flang makes > sense to be part of llvm core. E.g., implementation of a

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 5:14 PM Nicholas Krause via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 2/29/20 7:23 PM, River Riddle wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 4:00 PM Nicholas Krause <xerofoify at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 2/29/20 6:17 PM, River Riddle via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat,

[CC bollu, mferguson, shil] Am Do., 23. Mai 2019 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb Bardia Mahjour < bmahjour at ca.ibm.com>: > Thanks David and Michael for the clarification. > > I think I understand the rational behind those checks in delinearization > now. > > > Some other languages have stronger guarantees about their array > dimensions accesses being in range. But this being

Hola a todos, Me gustaria pedir vuestra ayuda a encontrar el error que no consigo encontrar en este archivo. He revisado todo mil veces y probado y no doy con ello.Adjunto el archivo con Google drive porque es muy grande. ? monicap_50.csv <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8o2KrPEgG7ATlBMc19lTVk1d3M/edit?usp=drive_web> ? Este es el script, y lo que no entiendo que pasa es que tengo 592044

On 3/3/20 8:37 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 28, 2020, at 6:03 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org > <mailto:clattner at nondot.org>> wrote: >> >> On Feb 28, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Johannes Doerfert >> <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com <mailto:johannesdoerfert at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> On 02/28, Nicholas Krause via llvm-dev wrote:

On 3/18/20 9:49 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 7:23 AM Nicholas Krause via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> On 3/3/20 8:37 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >> On Feb 28, 2020, at 6:03 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote: >> >> >> On Feb 28, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at

Hi folks. If I am indexing ModelA and ModelB and I want to search both of them, I usually just pick one arbitrarily and use it for #multi_search. Is there a slicker pattern, regarding from which model to invoke #multi_search? Can it be invoked directly from the Ferret library? Has anyone put together some sort of "dummy" search class? Thanks for any ideas. John

I am not convinced this is a jump-threading issue, but in the domain of ScalarEvolution. ScEv would need to find out which of the exits are taken or whether it loops infinitely. One can see that it exits after 10000 iterations, but ScalarEvolution cannot tell: https://godbolt.org/z/dCqdvv Michael Am Mo., 3. Feb. 2020 um 11:56 Uhr schrieb Karl Rehm <klrehm123 at gmail.com>: > > Well

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:25 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:19 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote: > >> On Feb 29, 2020, at 2:08 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I've >>> curious as >>> to how MLIR deals with IPO as that's

On 09/08/2019 4:37 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote: > Duncan, > > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:17 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com > <mailto:murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 09/08/2019 2:41 p.m., Gabriel Becker wrote: > > Note that this proposal would make mypackage_2.3.1 a valid > *package name*, > > whose

On 25 February 2016 at 12:46, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I'm repeating myself but not they are not identical on the git side. Not for > people without push access to the main repo anyway. We're talking about the people with commit access to the main repo. No commit access still needs someone with commit access to push/merge. >

Hola Daniel, si perdona di a responder directamente y no me di cuenta. Ya se donde esta el error, pero queria preguntar si a puede ser que mi R funcione mal o algo porque esta manhana ejecute mi script y funciono perfectamente y ahora volvi a ejecutarlo y me volvio a dar el mismo problema de ayer , despues de reiniciar y demas el tinnR y el R, no se si me vacila o es que tengo algo mal en