sema | Sema – Live Code Language Design Playground | Audio Utils library

The way to avoid changing the ulimit is to make sure that your process pool size does not increase beyond 1024. That's why 1000 works and 10000 fails.

Here's an example of managing the processes with a Pool which will ensure you don't go above the ceiling of your ulimit value:

Your waitgroup is waiting for more goroutines than you created. The walk_func adds to the wg, but may return without creating a new goroutine. Replace with:

The thread pool is designed for operations that run quickly. Your first program schedules a bunch of work to the thread pool that runs for an extremely long period of time (because you've scheduled a ton of operations that can only ever run sequentially anyway, so they're all waiting on each other), you're scheduling more work than there are workers, so you end up in the situation where every single worker is just sitting there waiting on other work further down the queue of the thread pool. In this situation you've basically generated the most common async deadlock situation as you're blocking the scheduler from running the continuations needed to let work finish, only it doesn't technically deadlock because the thread pool will notice that no work is being done, and add more workers over time, each of which will just sit there and do nothing, waiting for things further down the queue of work to finally be scheduled. Eventually you end up having enough thread pool threads that work can actually proceed. But work won't proceed until the thread pool finally has created about as many threads as you have work scheduled for it, and as you can see, that takes some time.

When you do the whole thing asynchronously you don't have that common sync over async problem of blocking the scheduler from doing more work, as the work you're having the thread pool do is only ever the actual work that needs to be done, instead of having the workers sit there and block while waiting for other things to finish.

But as a programmer we are used to local variables inside of functions being available until leaving the scope.

This hasn't been the case since ARC was first released for ObjC. ARC has always had the option to release objects after their last use (and very often makes use of this). This is by design, and is not a bug in Swift (or in ObjC, where it's also true).

In Swift, if you want to extend the lifetime of an object beyond its last use,withExtendedLifetime is explicitly for this purpose.

You're using a promoted widget, that is imported from the same file.

When loading an ui that uses a promoted widget, uic actually imports the file that contains it, and as with any import statement, everything in the main indentation level of the imported file is actually executed.

The result is that your program is actually run twice.

That's another reason for which it is very important to use the if __name__ == '__main__' check.

You are using MBBI to give the position to the buildMI while it is not yet initialized.
what I understand is that you want to add an instruction before the call so you should use MI instead of MBBI as the second parameter.
The target instruction info (XII) is not initialized also.
You can take a look here:
https://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#id23

Not exactly sure what your column names are, but is the summary column contains the names and the few names you want to remove, this should work. Else you may have to change the column name accordingly.

llvm::APInt represents a fixed-width bit vector. It doesn't distinguish between signed and unsigned values, so you can't simply use >, >=, <, and <= to compare values because it doesn't know whether you want to interpret the value of the APInt as a signed or unsigned number. != and == work because they have the same semantics for both signed and unsigned quantities.

As you can see here, llvm::APInt provides separate signed and unsigned greater-than comparisons using the sgt and ugt methods. These methods provide overloads that take a a int64_t and a uint64_t respectively.

Thus, the correct code would be either: if( IL->getValue().ugt(65535) or if( IL->getValue().sgt(65535)).

Try this