similar to: systemd syslog.target

Thanks Simon,I think my question got a bit lost amongst all the grub issues - does anyone else have information about whether any references to syslog.target in systemd unit files can be removed?ChrisSent from Samsung Mobile on O2 -------- Original message -------- From: Simon Matter via CentOS <centos at centos.org> Date: 31/07/2020 10:02 (GMT+00:00) To: CentOS mailing list <centos

Hi, List, As you may know, BCC of android makes use of LLVM's major components. Its LTO actually selects some optimizations of LLVM. I found it can not only use "-functionattrs". I must first use -argpromotion first, or I end up this error: Pass 'Deduce function attributes' is not initialized. Verify if there is a pass dependency cycle. Required Passes: bcc:

On Nov 29, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Nov 29, 2010, at 1:17 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >>> Interesting -- LLVM does perform on the fly cleanups during inlining >>> transformation -- this will make summary update precise. One thing I notice from >>> the debug pass dump is that the 'deduce function

I would like to automatically deduce in a script if an ssh key is encrypted or not. Basically in a very particular application I want to be the BOFH and enforce that users place a passphrase on their id_rsa key. If they don't put a passphrase I want to send them back to ssh-keygen until they do. I have not been able to deduce a way to detect this yet. Any hints? Thanks Bob

It compiles successfully with VC++ 7.1. You are apparently using VC++ 8.0, otherwise known as the Whidbey beta. The cause is no doubt due to bugs in Whidbey and this isn't the first one encountered. I'm sorry, but I cannot support beta Microsoft products (if only because I refuse to have them anywhere near my computer). All I can suggest is that you do a 'clean solution'

On Nov 29, 2010, at 5:15 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Nov 29, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > >> >> On Nov 29, 2010, at 1:17 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>>> Interesting -- LLVM does perform on the fly cleanups during inlining >>>> transformation -- this will make summary update precise. One

On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 11:49 -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > say I've a LLVM module with a call instruction. The called function is > > "pure", that is it has no side-effects at all. How can I communicate this > > to LLVM, so that the function call can be removed if the return value is > > never used? > >

I'm not sure what causes this. Everything builds fine in Release mode but when I try to do a Debug build I get an error in Transforms (which causes all dependant projects to fail as well). I'm not exactly sure what causes the error, I'll try to investigate tomorrow (unless someone can figure out what it is by then). Below is the output from VS: ------ Build started: Project:

Hi all, I'm instrumenting IR by replacing loads and stores by calls to a library, which I have compiled to bitcode such that inlining can take place. My problem is: If I could retain the alignment information on the load/store, this would open many optimization opportunities after inlining. Unfortunately, I don't know how. After thinking about it, and trying different things, I now

On Nov 29, 2010, at 1:17 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi David, > >> Interesting -- LLVM does perform on the fly cleanups during inlining >> transformation -- this will make summary update precise. One thing I notice from >> the debug pass dump is that the 'deduce function attribute' pass happens before >> the clean up -- Is it intended? > > you are

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:26 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Sanjoy Das" < > sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> > > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>,

Hi Clemens, > I'm instrumenting IR by replacing loads and stores by calls to a library, which > I have compiled to bitcode such that inlining can take place. My problem is: If > I could retain the alignment information on the load/store, this would open many > optimization opportunities after inlining. Unfortunately, I don't know how. > > After thinking about it, and

Hi Duncan, thanks for your comments. >> First, consider this function: >> #include <stdint.h> >> uint64_t foo(uint64_t *bar) { >> *bar = 42; >> return (uint64_t)bar & 3; >> } >> >> Which is compiled to >> define i64 @foo(i64* %bar) nounwind uwtable ssp { >> store i64 42, i64* %bar, align 8 >>

I think this will have a much higher cost than my proposal to constrain how we deduce function attributes (which still fixes Sanjoy's latest example). Specifically, I think this will force us to constrain far too many transformations for the sake of code size in functions that we won't inline. Even if we were never going to deduce function attributes for anything in the function (because

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>, "Duncan P. N. Exon Smith" >

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Philip Reames" > <listmail at philipreames.com>, "Duncan P. N. Exon Smith" > <dexonsmith at apple.com>, "Xinliang David Li"

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not suggesting that either. I think there is a happy middle ground, but > I'm probably not explaining it very effectively, sorry. Lemme just try > again. > > There are two conceptually separable aspects of IPO as it is commonly > performed within LLVM. One is to use attributes on

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:38 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > *From: *"Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > *To: *"Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > > *Cc: *"llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Philip Reames" < > listmail at philipreames.com>, "Duncan P. N. Exon Smith" <

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: > That's a bit of a hack. Can we not deduce "pure" functions > conservatively? Yes, and we do. > Basically, anything that doesn't do any load or store > outside of its parameters and no malloc or free? Maybe a few other > constraints. Sounds fairly easy to deduce and might be useful for > optimization. We already do

From: Sean Paul <seanpaul at chromium.org> Since the logs protected by these checks specifically target syslog, use the new drm_debug_syslog_enabled() call to avoid triggering these prints when only trace is enabled. Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul at chromium.org> Changes in v5: -Added to the set --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/dispnv50/disp.h | 4 ++--