search for: crtp

...s internet service via a wireless antenna. 1 Mbit of up/down bandwith Comments: So far, this means that I will need licenses for the 729. asterisk only supports 20ms sampling on g729 so 4 channels will need 96 kilobits at 20ms sampling (or is it kilobytes??) for the internet bandwith. i cannot use CRTP because i cant be sure if the ISP's routers are CRTP aware. Installing ADSL from ISP1 on the asterisk place will give a clear advantage Please correct any of my prior statements if wrong. should I maintain packet latency below 300ms or 150ms? How can I measure this latency all the way to the...

...lass to write an explicit instantiation definition of their base class? If so, then the rest of my questions are moot. 2) If not, is this a problem with a native Windows 32-bit DLL build? 3) If this is a problem with the native Windows 32-bit DLL build, should we back out of using this pattern of CRTP injection of the static data member and just deal with the significant (and error prone) boiler plate? It seems less error prone than the alternative. 4) If this is not a problem with the native Windows 32-bit DLL, then I wonder how valuable it is to continue to support the conjunction of mingw32...

...be > annotated with __declspec(dllimport/dllexport). > > Here's the issue as I understand it: > - LLVM today supports using mingw64 compilers with -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON. > This produces a DLL per LLVM library, just like Unix. > - In lib/Analysis, each analysis inherits from a CRTP base class > AnalysisBase. > - AnalysisBase is very simple, it exists solely to provide the unique pass > ID in the form of a static data member. > - Because the ID is part of a template, it is only emitted when > referenced. This is the same on Windows and Unix, no compiler bug here...

...lag1Value, bool> { public: using StrongTypedef::StrongTypedef; }; class Flag2Value : public StrongTypedef<Flag2Value, bool> { public: using StrongTypedef::StrongTypedef; }; Note that Tag does not have to be a derived class and StrongTypedef does not have to be used in a CRTP manner, though it is often convenient to do so. The StrongTypedef template doesn't provide any operations outside of explicit conversion to/from the base type. Mixin classes can imbue it with new interfaces: // Mixin to add equality and inequality comparison. template<typename ST>...

What other suggested settings (as cRTP and VAD) that can help in this direction? Any work in the Jitter and Djitter that also can help? I would like to hear suggestions from those who expert these things and gained alot of experience in this direction. Any help? Regards Bilal -- ____________________________________________...

I have a tc script which splits the bandwidth in 8 leaf classes based on IP filtering. The script looks like this: tc filter add dev $LAN_IFACE protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 1 u32 match ip dst 192.168.0.121 flowid 1:11 The separation works excellent for downloads, but for uploads, it is ignored... Can you tell me how to deal with it? Thanks in advance, Vlad Mihai

Currently llvm-dwarfdump isn't very useful on ELF .o files because it doesn't apply relocations. nlewycky at ducttape:~$ llvm-dwarfdump helloworld.o | grep debug_str\\[ 0x0000000c: DW_AT_producer [DW_FORM_strp] ( .debug_str[0x00000000] = "clang version 3.2 (trunk 163034)") 0x00000012: DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( .debug_str[0x00000000] = "clang version 3.2 (trunk

...declare hooks for targets to customized some target-independent codegen layer behavior. A new mixin called `class CodeGenPassBuilder` is introduced to replace `class TargetPassConfig`(1), the naming is intended to be similar to its IR counterpart: `class PassBuilder`. `class CodeGenPassBuilder` is CRTP mixin instead of polymorphic class because it brings less layering, flexibility for targets to customized, inlining opportunity and fits the overall NPM value semantics design. There are potential compile-time issues, but I don't think it is a major concern at this moment. The design is not int...

(and FWIW, I'm currently trying to finish the patch that makes this a reality... mostly hard because it has to unwind a loooot of complexity we've built up due to not having this) On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 5:47 PM Jeremy Lakeman via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/123407.html > > TLDR; CallInst & InvokeInst

Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is essentially a single relevant API -- iterating successors. There is no other interesting aspect shared -- the interface itself just dispatches to specific instructions to be implemented. On the flip side, CallInst and InvokeInst have *massive* amounts of code shared and struggle