similar to: [RFC/PATCH 08/15] kvm-s390: intercepts for privileged instructions

From: Carsten Otte <cotte at de.ibm.com> This patch contains the s390 interrupt subsystem (similar to in kernel apic) including timer interrupts (similar to in-kernel-pit) and enabled wait (similar to in kernel hlt). In order to achieve that, this patch also introduces intercept handling for instruction intercepts, and it implements load control instructions. This patch introduces an

From: Carsten Otte <cotte at de.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> This patch introduces in-kernel handling of _some_ sigp interprocessor signals (similar to ipi). kvm_s390_handle_sigp() decodes the sigp instruction and calls individual handlers depending on the operation requested: - sigp sense tries to retrieve information such as existence or running

From: Carsten Otte <cotte at de.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens at de.ibm.com> This patch contains the port of Qumranet's kvm kernel module to IBM zSeries (aka s390x, mainframe) architecture. It uses the mainframe's virtualization instruction SIE to run virtual machines with up to 64 virtual CPUs

From: Carsten Otte <cotte at de.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens at de.ibm.com> This patch contains the port of Qumranet's kvm kernel module to IBM zSeries (aka s390x, mainframe) architecture. It uses the mainframe's virtualization instruction SIE to run virtual machines with up to 64 virtual CPUs

From: Carsten Otte <cotte at de.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> This patch introduces interpretation of some diagnose instruction intercepts. Diagnose is our classic architected way of doing a hypercall. This patch features the following diagnose codes: - vm storage size, that tells the guest about its memory layout - time slice end, which is used by

This patch series introduces a backend for kvm to run on IBM System z machines that uses the mainframe's sie virtualization capability. This work runs 64bit guests on z800/z890/z900/z990/z9/z10 class machines with a 64bit linux host. Userspace will follow once we're done brushing it over. The patch queue consists of the following patches, which can be applied in sequence on top of kvm.git

This patch series introduces a backend for kvm to run on IBM System z machines that uses the mainframe's sie virtualization capability. This work runs 64bit guests on z800/z890/z900/z990/z9/z10 class machines with a 64bit linux host. Userspace will follow once we're done brushing it over. The patch queue consists of the following patches, which can be applied in sequence on top of kvm.git

From: Carsten Otte <cotte at de.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> This path introduces handling of sie intercepts in three flavors: Intercepts are either handled completely in-kernel by kvm_handle_sie_intercept(), or passed to userspace with corresponding data in struct kvm_run in case kvm_handle_sie_intercept() returns -ENOTSUPP. In case of partial

From: Carsten Otte <cotte at de.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> This path introduces handling of sie intercepts in three flavors: Intercepts are either handled completely in-kernel by kvm_handle_sie_intercept(), or passed to userspace with corresponding data in struct kvm_run in case kvm_handle_sie_intercept() returns -ENOTSUPP. In case of partial

> > Just in case it gets lost in my longer reply, I want to emphasize that if > these will be used to simplify the in-tree backends and those backend > maintainers are on board, then I am *totally* in favor of this going into > the tree. My concerns are heavily based on the fact that as proposed, none > of that seems likely to happen. > > > Framing the problem

Rotem Varon wrote: > Hi, > > Let say i am writing a code inside basic block pass and iterating all > the instructions inside, > and i encountered in this instruction : If you're asking how to get the operands of an Instruction, use the getOperand() method: Value * Operand1 = I->getOperand(0); Value * Operand2 = I->getOperand(1); The LLVM doxygen documentation

Moshe, You're more than likely going to get a better response from https://devforums.apple.com/community/tools/xcode llvmdev is a mailing list for the LLVM project which is separate from Xcode development. Cheers, Joe On Jun 12, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Moshe Kravchik <mkravchik at hotmail.com<mailto:mkravchik at hotmail.com>> wrote: Hi, I've got an assembly file which used to

Hi, I've got an assembly file which used to compile with previous clang versions. However with 4.2 I get the following error: admin$ /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/clang -arch armv7 ./src/asm.s -o asm.o ./src/asm.s:30:5: error: instruction requires a CPU feature not currently enabled add r2, pc, r2 According to ARM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ati 6.9.0rc1 release Lots of changes since the last release. Main things are EXA composite support for r3xx/r4xx/r5xx chips and textured video support on all radeons. Adam Jackson (5): Bump CRTC size limits on AVIVO chips so 30" displays work without tweaking. Add R500 unified shader register block. Fix R500_US_CONFIG.

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Mark Seaborn <mseaborn at chromium.org>wrote: > >> The PNaCl project has implemented various IR simplification passes that >> simplify LLVM IR by lowering complex features to simpler features. We'd >> like to upstream some of these IR passes to

Hi, Let say i am writing a code inside basic block pass and iterating all the instructions inside, and i encountered in this instruction : %3 = add i32 %1, 2 I want to convert this instruction to something like this: add R1, 2, R3 I know the opocode, but i what i need is, the operands %1 and 2 (in this example). I will be grateful if some one will tell me how to do so . -------------- next

I am attempting to run a glm with a binomial model to analyze proportion data. I have been following Crawley's book closely and am wondering if there is an accepted standard for how much is too much overdispersion? (e.g. change in AIC has an accepted standard of 2). In the example, he fits several models, binomial and quasibinomial and then accepts the quasibinomial. The output for residual

I am running a binomial glm with response variable the no of mites of two species y->cbind(mitea,miteb) against two continuous variables (temperature and predatory mites) - see below. My model shows overdispersion as the residual deviance is 48.81 on 5 degrees of freedom. If I use quasibinomial to account for overdispersion the dispersion parameter estimate is 2501139, which seems