Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "112356".
Did you mean:
12356
2010 Sep 07
0
[LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?
...t; Here's a suggestion - can we make the "union patch" (the inverse of the
> patch that removed unions) as a downloadable file so that people who are
> interested in finishing the work can do so?
Anyone who's really interested in working on it can just use "svn diff
-c 112356", and apply it with "patch -R".
-Eli
2010 Sep 07
2
[LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?
...n - can we make the "union patch" (the inverse of the
> > patch that removed unions) as a downloadable file so that people who are
> > interested in finishing the work can do so?
>
> Anyone who's really interested in working on it can just use "svn diff
> -c 112356", and apply it with "patch -R".
Well I tried that, the patch fails to reverse apply. Out of the
34 files touched by the patch, not a single hunk actually manages
to reverse apply.
Assuming I was to decide to embark on the effort of getting unions
back into LLVM:
a) What is requi...
2010 Sep 07
4
[LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?
Here's a suggestion - can we make the "union patch" (the inverse of the
patch that removed unions) as a downloadable file so that people who are
interested in finishing the work can do so?
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote:
> On 7 September 2010 15:36, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>
> wrote:
> >
2010 Sep 07
0
[LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?
...e "union patch" (the inverse of the
>>> patch that removed unions) as a downloadable file so that people who are
>>> interested in finishing the work can do so?
>>
>> Anyone who's really interested in working on it can just use "svn diff
>> -c 112356", and apply it with "patch -R".
>
> Well I tried that, the patch fails to reverse apply. Out of the
> 34 files touched by the patch, not a single hunk actually manages
> to reverse apply.
>
> Assuming I was to decide to embark on the effort of getting unions
>...
2004 Nov 30
2
RE: [Shorewall-devel] SFTP
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 12:17 +0700, Matthew Hodgett wrote:
>
> As for the 169.254 issue I tried to search the archives but got nothing.
> I then tried to search on generic words, nothing. I then tried some
> really common words like ''help'', ''initiated'', ''masq'' - nothing. I think
> the index might be corrupt because I get no