similar to: roundup in vdev_raidz.c

Lately I have had a few discussions of what it means for a register to be unallocatable or reserved. As this comes up every now and again and I often struggled answering such questions I decided to write down some definite rules and codify the current usage and assumptions. I plan to put the rules below into the doxygen comments of MachineRegisterInfo etc. And I also hope that people will correct

Hi Matthias, Thanks for doing this. Each time we talk about it, it takes us 10 min to rebuild those rules form our recollection, so definitely useful to write them down. I am in agreement with what you wrote down. I just think we need additional rules for the constant registers like Jakob mentioned: - Their value is constant (i.e., copy propagation is fine, unlike regular reserved registers). -

On 02/25/2016 06:14 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev wrote: > 1) The value read from a reserved register cannot be predicted. Reading a reserved register twice may each time produce a different result. This seems broken to me that treating another copy should be assumed to produce a different result. This seems like it should be optimized, and have a special volatile_copy instruction for the

> On Feb 25, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > > Lately I have had a few discussions of what it means for a register to be unallocatable or reserved. As this comes up every now and again and I often struggled answering such questions I decided to write down some definite rules and codify the current usage and assumptions. I plan to put the rules below

Hi Matthias, This pretty much matches my memory. I think that the rules are a bit ad hoc and not followed to the letter everywhere. It would be good to codify something concrete. I thought that I added some way of distinguishing between constant registers and other reserved registers but I can’t find it now. We do some register coalescing that is not consistent with your rules here: If a virtual

Hi, I'm writing to ask the differences between a "reserved" register and an "unallocable" register. In X86 backend, for example, the stack pointer register and instruction pointer are reserved but allocatable. In the Doxygen document of function llvm::TargetRegisterInfo::getReservedRegs, it says that a reserved register is one that *has particular uses and should be

There is MachineRegisterInfo::isConstantPhysReg(), in the current implementation this just returns true if it cannot find any def operand for the register (or on of its aliases). I think we also write to zero registers at times and then this function would return false... For this to work reliably targets would need to provide the constant information explicitely. For the "writing to them

Let's try this again after some longer offline discussions: = Reserved Registers = The primary use of reserved registers is to hold values required by runtime conventions. Typical examples are the stack pointer, frame pointer maybe TLS base address, GOT address ... Zero registers and program counters are an odd special case for which we may be able to provide looser rules. == Rules == 1)

On Apr 17, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Lei Mou wrote: > I'm writing to ask the differences between a "reserved" register and an "unallocable" register. In X86 backend, for example, the stack pointer register and instruction pointer are reserved but allocatable. In the Doxygen document of function llvm::TargetRegisterInfo::getReservedRegs, it says that a reserved register is one

This patch adds a per-node bucket to the heap structure in Xen. During heap initialization the patch determines which bucket to place the memory. We reserve guard pages between node boundaries in the case that said boundary isn''t already guarded by the MAX_ORDER boundary to prevent the buddy allocator from merging pages between nodes. -- Ryan Harper Software Engineer; Linux Technology

Yeah:) I''d like to work on this. Here are my first observations: - We need to call vdev_op_asize method with additonal ''offset'' argument, - We need to move data to new disk starting from the very begining, so we can''t reuse scrub/resilver code which does tree-walk through the data. Below you can see how I imagine to extend RAIDZ. Here is the legend:

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 22:14:00 -0700 Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > > On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > > 112B BB#1: derived from LLVM BB %for.body, ADDRESS TAKEN > > Predecessors according to CFG: BB#0 BB#1 > > %vreg12<def> = PHI %vreg13, <BB#1>, %vreg11, > >

Hi Dan, While testing device mapper with DAX, I faced a bug with the commit: commit ad428cdb525a97d15c0349fdc80f3d58befb50df Author: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams at intel.com> Date: Wed Feb 20 21:12:50 2019 -0800 When I reverted the condition to old code[1] it worked for me. I am thinking when we map two different devices (e.g with device mapper), will start & end pfn still point

Hi Dan, While testing device mapper with DAX, I faced a bug with the commit: commit ad428cdb525a97d15c0349fdc80f3d58befb50df Author: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams at intel.com> Date: Wed Feb 20 21:12:50 2019 -0800 When I reverted the condition to old code[1] it worked for me. I am thinking when we map two different devices (e.g with device mapper), will start & end pfn still point

On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:54 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > For example, sometimes LiveIntervals asserts with: > register: > %CTR8 > clang: /llvm-trunk/lib/CodeGen/LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp:446: > void llvm::LiveInterval > s::handlePhysicalRegisterDef(llvm::MachineBasicBlock*, > llvm::MachineBasicBlock::iterator, llvm::SlotIndex, > llvm::MachineOperand&,

Hello, I''m a big bookworm, so I decided to round up all the upcoming Ruby books in the market in one big blog post. At my count, there are _sixteen_ books to be released (in print) for the upcoming year, with some available in pdf form right now. Here''s the list: http://www.robsanheim.com/2006/03/23/ruby-and-ruby-on-rails-book-roundup/ Hope its helpful for fellow book nerds

Since 2008, Microsoft staff and guests have written about R at the Revolutions blog (http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com) and every month I post a summary of articles from the previous month of particular interest to readers of r-help. In case you missed them, here are some articles related to R from the month of April: Microsoft R Open 3.4.4, based on R 3.4.4, is now available:

May be of interest... HTML5, H.264 and Flash roundup http://www.infoq.com/news/2010/02/html-h264-flash-ipad -- Pete Harlow Catnip Corner - Photography by Pete Harlow http://www.catnip.co.uk/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/attachments/20100208/3c7f142c/attachment.htm

I am happy to announce the release of Episode 1 of the Ruby Roundup podcast. You can find it at http://rubyroundup.com This will be a weekly podcast covering the latest news and events in the world of Ruby. Have a listen and let us know what you think ... -Bill Siggelkow --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Since 2008, Microsoft staff and guests have written about R at the Revolutions blog (http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com) and every month I post a summary of articles from the previous month of particular interest to readers of r-help. In case you missed them, here are some articles related to R from the month of March: The "reticulate" package provides an interface between R and