similar to: Enterprise company using CentOS

Hi We have systems that is business critical and therefor need support. Instead of having two different brands a solution could be to have everything on CentOS and sign up support for those that are business critical instead of managing both RHEL and CentOS. //mats 2018-04-19 10:28 GMT+02:00 Pete Biggs <pete at biggs.org.uk>: > > > We are about to create a business case for

Am 19.04.2018 um 10:42 schrieb Mats Benns?ter <mats.bennsater at gmail.com>: > > We have systems that is business critical and therefor need support. One requirement that is addressed by having a RHEL subscription. > Instead of having two different brands a solution could be to have everything > on CentOS and sign up support for those that are business critical instead of

> We are about to create a business case for migrate RHEL to CentOS for all or > a subset of our RHEL holdings. I have two questions that I hope to get help > answering. > > 2. Suggestion/recommendation of vendors that can provide support for CentOs. > Forgive me if I'm being a bit naive, but surely the point of CentOS is that it is the option for those who do not wish to

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > 2017-10-14 1:29 GMT+02:00 Saito, Hideki via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > > I'm also sorry that I'm not commenting on the main part of your RFC in > this reply. I just want to focus on > > one thing here. > > > >

At 2013-06-30 08:34:34,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 06/29/2013 05:04 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I have investigated the compile-time overhead of "Polly Scop Detection" pass based on LNT testing results. >> This mail is to share some results I have found. >> >> >> (1) Analysis

On 06/29/2013 05:04 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, > > > > I have investigated the compile-time overhead of "Polly Scop Detection" pass based on LNT testing results. > This mail is to share some results I have found. > > > (1) Analysis of "SCOP Detection Pass" for PolyBench (Attached file PolyBench_SCoPs.log) > Experimental results show that the

On 07/01/2013 06:51 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> Great. Now we have two test cases we can work with. Can you > >> upload the LLVM-IR produced by clang -O0 (without Polly)? > Since tramp3d-v4.ll is to large (19M with 267 thousand lines), I would focus on the oggenc benchmark at firat. > I attached the oggenc.ll (LLVM-IR produced by clang -O0 without Polly), which compressed into the

Hi all, I have investigated the compile-time overhead of "Polly Scop Detection" pass based on LNT testing results. This mail is to share some results I have found. (1) Analysis of "SCOP Detection Pass" for PolyBench (Attached file PolyBench_SCoPs.log) Experimental results show that the "SCOP Detection pass" does not lead to significant extra compile-time

>> (3) About detecting scop regions in bottom-up order. >> Detecting scop regions in bottom-up order can significantly speed up the scop detection pass. However, as I have discussed with Sebastian, detecting scops in bottom-up order and up-bottom order will lead to different results. As a result, we should not change the detection order. > >Sebastian had a patch for this. Does

Mmm, this code seems to kill polly: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int main() { char *B; int i,j,k,h; const int x = 0, y=0; B = (char *)malloc(sizeof(char)*1024*1024); for (i = 1; i < 1024; i++) for (j = 1; j < 1024; j++) { if (i+j > 1000) B[j] = i; } printf("Random Value: %d", B[rand() % 1024*1024]); return 0; } running: opt

On 07/28/2013 06:52 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > I tried to investigated the problem related to ScopInfo, but I need your > help on handling some problems about ISL and SCEV. I copied the list as the discussion may be helpful for others. @Sven, no need to read all. Just search for your name. [..] >>The interesting observation is, that Polly introduces three parameters

Hi Tobias. I worked on enabling Polly accepting non affine memory accesses and I produced a patch. I saw that there were a lot of updates in Polly recently, so I had to redo a lot of the work I did and that slowed me quite a bit. I tested the patch on some programs and it seems to work and not to break anything, but you know the topic much better than me, so if you find something wrong please

On 07/25/2013 09:01 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > > Recently, I found the "Polly - Calculate dependences" pass would lead to significant compile-time overhead when compiling some loop-intensive source code. Tobias told me you found similar problem as follows: > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14240 > > > My evaluation shows that "Polly -

At 2013-07-26 14:14:51,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 07/25/2013 09:01 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi Sebastian, >> >> >> Recently, I found the "Polly - Calculate dependences" pass would lead to significant compile-time overhead when compiling some loop-intensive source code. Tobias told me you found similar problem as follows:

Michael, [Sorry that I don't have you in To:. I don't have your addr that I can use since I'm replying through digest.] I'm also sorry that I'm not commenting on the main part of your RFC in this reply. I just want to focus on one thing here. Proposed Loop Optimization Framework ------------------------------------

Dear Community, I would like to summarize my work till date for GSoC 2016. Till the current phase of my project, I have mostly focused on developing the necessary infrastructure to use analysis results from Polly in LLVM. Initial plan as mentioned in the proposal: For the first month:- 1. Decouple ScopInfo pass from Polly’s pass chain and provide capability to create SCoP(Static

Hi Duncan & Tobi, Thanks a lot for your interest, and for pointing out differences in GIMPLE I missed. Attached is simplified test case. Is it good? Tobi, regarding runtime alias analysis: in KernelGen we already do it along with runtime values substitution. For example: <------------------ __kernelgen_main_loop_17: compile started ---------------------> Integer args substituted:

On 11/02/2011 11:17 AM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > Mmm I found out a very strange behavior (to me) of the SCEV analysis > of the loop bound of the external loop I posted. > When in ScopDetection it gets the SCEV of the external loop bound in > the "isValidLoop()" function with: > const SCEV *LoopCount = SE->getBackedgeTakenCount(L); > > It returns a

At 2013-08-17 23:22:32,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 08/17/2013 12:08 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> At 2013-08-16 22:32:30,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, I have changed the original code to the form you suggested: >>>> for (i >>>> for (j >>>>

Hi, I think this should also go on the llvm-dev mailing list... On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Star Tan <tanmx_star at yeah.net> wrote: > > At 2013-07-14 02:30:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>On 07/13/2013 10:13 AM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Hi Tobias, >> >>Hi Star, >> >>thanks for the update. I copied the polly