similar to: Problem installing R

Hello Maksim, On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:57 AM Maksim Panchenko <maks at fb.com> wrote: > Cool. The new numbers look good. If you run BOLT with jemalloc library > > preloaded, you will likely get a runtime closer to 1 minute. We’ve noticed > that > > compared to the default malloc, it improves the multithreaded > > performance and brings down memory usage

I'm a bit confused by this subthread -- doesn't BOLT have the exact same CFI bloat issue? From my cursory reading of the propellor doc, the CFI duplication is _necessary_ to represent discontiguous functions, not anything particular to the way Propellor happens to generate those discontiguous functions. And emitting discontiguous functions is a fundamental goal of this, right? On Wed,

Good afternoon. Faced an incomprehensible problem in the work of Samba 4.4.5 and Samba 4.6.4 In the config I have the parameters: Directory mask = 0770 Force directory mode = 0770 Create mask = 0770 Force create mode = 0770 On systems starting from Windows XP and above, as well as with MacOS X 10.8 and higher, everything works right. But on MacOS X 10.6 - 10.7 systems, why folders and files are

Hello Maksim, On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:52 PM Maksim Panchenko <maks at fb.com> wrote: > Hi Sri, > > > > I want to clarify one thing before sending a detailed reply: did you > evaluate > > BOLT on Clang built with basic block sections? > In the makefile you reference, > > there are two versions: a “vanilla” and a default built with function > sections.

We are going to be at the llvm-dev meeting the next two days. We will get back to you after that. Sri On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:07 PM Maksim Panchenko <maks at fb.com> wrote: > Hi Sri, > > > > Thank you for replying to our feedback. 7 out 12 high-level concerns have > been > > answered; 2 of them are fully addressed. The rest are being tracked at the > >

Hi All, Our team at Hip-Hop Virtual Machine (http://hhvm.com<http://hhvm.com/>) have been experimenting with using LLVM as a code generator for x86-64. We have been successfully running it for quite some time as a secondary back end. We had to modify our version of LLVM and our mods were based on 3.5 release. At this point we feel our requirements have become stable enough to start

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:41 PM Maksim Panchenko via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > *Pessimization/overhead for stack unwinding used by system-wide profilers > and > for exception handling* > > Larger CFI programs put an extra burden on unwinding at runtime as more CFI > (and thus native) instructions have to be executed. This will cause more > overhead

Full_Name: vinod rajakumar Version: R-1.4.0 OS: Solaris 5.8 Submission from: (NULL) (66.9.157.2) my machine looks like: SunOS 5.8 Generic_108528-07 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-1000 (64-bit) I downloaded the zipped R-1.4.0 files into $HOME/dwnlds, unzipped, un-tar-ed, and ran the following: export MAKE=gmake export CC = gcc ./configure --prefix=$HOME/sfw/R gmake and here's where it

[global] workgroup = ... security = ADS realm = .... passdb backend = tdbsam log level = 3 vfs:2 syslog = 0 encrypt passwords = yes template shell = /bin/csh map to guest = Bad User deadtime = 30 winbind separator = / winbind refresh tickets = yes winbind trusted domains only = no

We would also like to clarify on the misconceptions around CFI Instructions: There are two things that need to be clarified here: 1) Extra CFI FDE entries for basic blocks does not mean more dynamic instructions are executed. In fact, they do not increase at all. Krys talked about this earlier. 2) We do deduplication of common static CFI instructions in the FDE and move it to the CIE . Hence,

Is there large value from deferring the block ordering to link time? That is, does the block layout algorithm need to consider global layout issues when deciding which blocks to put together and which to relegate to the far-away part of the code? Or, could the propellor-optimized compile step instead split each function into only 2 pieces -- one containing an "optimally-ordered" set of

Hello, I wanted to consolidate all the discussions and our final thoughts on the concerns raised. I have attached a document consolidating it. BOLT’s performance gains inspired this work and we believe BOLT is a great piece of engineering. However, there are build environments where scalability is critical and memory limits per process are tight : * Debug Fission,

Hello- Tired of the crashes I was experiencing with r 1.2.1 on Windows ME, I downloaded the r-1.2.1.tgz under my Debian Linux box. I untared, unzipped and then I ./configure and make as specified i the FAQ. But something went wrong...I had version 0.90 per-installed, as it comes with the normal Debian distribution and now, whenever I run R, the old version is the one that executed. Can

On 9/8/15, 9:35 AM, "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >On 09/04/2015 11:36 AM, Brett Simmers via llvm-dev wrote: >> On 9/4/15 1:12 AM, Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev wrote: >>> Specifically on "Location records" -- >>> >>> Is it legal for the optimizer to drop the `!locrec` metadata that you >>> attach to

Dear friends, I am trying to install R-2.4.1 from source on Solaris 11 x-86. 64 bits, running on Sun Ultra-20 workstation, and using the SunStudio 11 compilers. I was able to "configure" R correctly, but received an error in "gmake", aparently related to bzip2 which I have been unable to debug. The messages are listed below. The configure.log and configure.status files are

Some more information about the relaxation pass whose effectiveness and convergence guarantees were listed as a concern: TLDR; Our relaxation pass is similar to what LLVM’s MCAssembler does but with a caveat for efficiency. Our experimental results show it is efficient and convergence is guaranteed. Our relaxation pass is very similar to what MCAssembler does as it needs to solve the same

On 9/3/15, 3:34 PM, "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: Hi, On Sep 3, 2015, at 1:38 PM, Maksim Panchenko via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Hi All, Our team at Hip-Hop Virtual Machine (http://hhvm.com<http://hhvm.com/>) have been experimenting with using LLVM

Dear all, I hope the following problem haven't been discussed here recently (I could not find anything about it the help archive files) : I tried to compile R-0.64.2 from the source files without much success... the last lines from the output of the ./configure command were : ---------------------------------------------------------- R is now configured for mips-sgi-irix6.4 Source

thanks for the reply ..I tried building it from outside ...but got a similar error .. # ls /llvm/src ==> src directory llvm-3.1.src # pwd /llvm/build ==> build directory #gmake libs-only ... ... gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/llvm/build/lib/DebugInfo' gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/llvm/build/lib' gmake[1]: Entering directory `/llvm/build/tools/llvm-config'

I am getting a build error after doing a "make update" and then running "make clean all": gmake[4]: *** No rule to make target `/home/ryan/llvm/llvm_core/trunk/Release+Asserts/lib/ocaml/llvm.cmi', needed by `/home/ryan/llvm/llvm_core/trunk/bindings/ocaml/transforms/ipo/Release+Asserts/llvm_ipo.cmi'. Stop. gmake[4]: Leaving directory