similar to: [PITCH#2] Improvements to LLVM Decision Making

Hi everyone, I''m working through the tutorial at the following link and attempting to customise/adapt the lessons for my own slightly different application. Link: Ruby on Rails Tutorial: Learn Rails by Example | Ruby on Rails 3 Tutorial book and screencasts | by Michael Hartl <http://ruby.railstutorial.org/ruby-on-rails-tutorial-book> I''m currently trying to work

Hello, Following up on last week's LLVM-Dev meeting where we discussed MemorySSA related topics, I created the following google doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-uEEZfmRdPThZlctOq9eXlmUaSSAAi8oKxhrPY_lpjk/edit#> with some of the meeting notes and planning for future meetings. For those who participated, please feel free to add items I may have missed into the document and cc

Dear All, I am glad to be part of GSoC 2016 with LLVM organization. I am a first year PhD student at IIT Hyderabad, India and my research area is compiler optimizations using polyhedral model. My GSoC 2016 project is to implement Polly as an Analysis pass in LLVM [1]. We have a discussion on Polly-dev mailing list [2] on taking a better approach to implement this project. Based upon this

Hi all, I am trying to reproduce rails 3.2 behaviour with fields_for and nested attributes. class ControllerAction < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :interactions, dependent: :destroy has_many :roles, through: :interactions scope :controllers, lambda {|name| where("controller_name_id = ?", name)} scope :actions, lambda {|name| where("action_name_id =

hi all, I am using will_paginate plug_in i am getting URL as http://localhost:3000/admin/edit#/admin/edit?page=3 but i want it should be http://localhost:3000/admin/edit?page=3 how can I do it. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails:

Hi all, I'm working on a new pass to optimize comparison chains. Motivation Clang currently generates inefficient code when dealing with contiguous member-by-member structural equality. Consider: struct A { bool operator==(const A& o) const { return i == o.i && j == o.j; } uint32 i; uint32 j; }; This generates: mov eax, dword ptr [rdi] cmp eax,

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 8:20 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The goal/intent is that debug info does not affect code generation. There are (many?) bugs. I think Apple folks (cc'd Adrian) may be looking at this a bit recently, not sure. > > The fixes aren't usually too invasive (usually involve something counting instructions where

Hi Christian, I’m sorry, but this is still on my todo list. I’ve been a bit DoS’d lately, but I do hope to come back to this soon. -Chris > On Feb 21, 2020, at 4:24 AM, Christian Kühnel <kuhnel at google.com> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > Did you reach any decision on how to move forward? > I would be happy if we get this (or something similar) started... > >

Sure, I'll summarize with respect to the criterion in the document: - Must be generally aligned with the mission of the LLVM project to advance compilers, languages, tools, runtimes, etc. CIRCT is a compiler which is built around LLVM/MLIR. We anticipate building code generation for ASIC and FPGA backends along with specialized accelerators, while leveraging existing LLVM backends for

On 01/15, James Henderson via llvm-dev wrote: > One other thought: any formal review period needs to be long enough for > people to contribute to if they have any annual leave from work or > whatever. For example, if the review period were to be set to two weeks, > I'd have missed proposals made at the start of roughly 2-3 different 2 week > periods last year. It would have been

On 15/01/2020 10:04, Doerfert, Johannes via llvm-dev wrote: >> "It isn't clear how to propose some changes in the first place, and it >> is often unclear who the decision makers are." > I feel that patches and RFCs are well established*and documented* [1,2] > ways to propose changes. In addition, the *-dev lists, IRC, etc. do > provide ways to clear

Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > If we want to go for meritocracy, which I think most people would > agree, then it would have to be people that already represent the > community, internally or externally. Given your close attention to representation I know that you have all the best intentions here, so please take this in the spirit of productive

Hi all, Thank you to all who responded to the planning poll. The meeting is set for 10:30 Pacific Time/5:30pm UTC (in about 3h). Details in the google doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-uEEZfmRdPThZlctOq9eXlmUaSSAAi8oKxhrPY_lpjk/edit#> included before. The agenda includes progress on the topics discussed last time (meeting notes in the doc), and open discussions and questions from

This is the default scaffolding for list.rhtml: [code] <h1>Listing <%= @scaffold_plural_name %></h1> <table> <tr> <% for column in @scaffold_class.content_columns %> <th><%= column.human_name %></th> <% end %> </tr> <% for entry in instance_variable_get("@#{@scaffold_plural_name}") %> <tr> <% for

LLVM Weekly - #82, Jul 27th 2015 ================================ If you prefer, you can read a HTML version of this email at <http://llvmweekly.org/issue/82> Welcome to the eighty-second issue of LLVM Weekly, a weekly newsletter (published every Monday) covering developments in LLVM, Clang, and related projects. LLVM Weekly is brought to you by [Alex Bradbury](http://asbradbury.org).

Hi Everyone, Numerous people have been bringing up challenges with consensus driven decision making in the LLVM community. After considering this and seeing the frustrations it is causing many people, I think we should make a formal process change to help improve decision making going forward. Here is the outline of the draft proposal

Hi all, In a recent IISWC paper <http://groups.csail.mit.edu/commit/papers/19/ithemal-measurement.pdf>, we've proposed BHive - a new methodology for benchmarking arbitrary basic blocks that has several advantages over the one currently used in llvm-exegesis. In particular, the new methodology: - automatically handles memory accesses in the basic block, without the need to manually

Hi all, In several of our tests, I have noticed that the register allocator allocates to virtual registers in a different order when compiling with the clang option -g. Before entering the register allocator, the code is identical when compiling with and without -g (with the exception of " DBG_VALUE" instructions). The only difference I can see is the value assigned to the slot index

Hi guys, Here's two patches I'm planning to apply to simplify the pitch quantisation. Can you test them and let me know how it works? Thanks, Jean-Marc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-Moved-the-application-of-the-pitch-gain-to-un-quant.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 8182 bytes Desc: not available Url :

Hello, When used in SILK mode, is there a way to manually modify the pitch (F0) of the speech signal before resynthesizing during Opus decoding? In the below, we have modified the pitch lags of (4), e.g., with a constant scaling factor 0.5 to decrease the pitch of the voice by one octave. However, the result was perceptually the same as without modifying the pitch lags. +---------+