search for: 168b

...wouldn't be slow. Since there are > fewer functions than instructions, we can afford to store the > attachments directly on the `Function` instead of off in the > `LLVMContext`. > > It's not clear to me just how precious memory is in `Function`; IIRC > it's sitting at 168B right now for x86-64. IMO, a `SmallVector<..., 1>` > -- cost of 64B -- seems fine. I'll start with this if I don't hear any > objections; we can optimize later if necessary. > > Otherwise, I could hack together a custom vector-like object with the > "small string...

...nce there are >> fewer functions than instructions, we can afford to store the >> attachments directly on the `Function` instead of off in the >> `LLVMContext`. >> >> It's not clear to me just how precious memory is in `Function`; IIRC >> it's sitting at 168B right now for x86-64. IMO, a `SmallVector<..., 1>` >> -- cost of 64B -- seems fine. I'll start with this if I don't hear any >> objections; we can optimize later if necessary. >> >> Otherwise, I could hack together a custom vector-like object with the >&g...

...ewer functions than instructions, we can afford to store the > >> attachments directly on the `Function` instead of off in the > >> `LLVMContext`. > >> > >> It's not clear to me just how precious memory is in `Function`; IIRC > >> it's sitting at 168B right now for x86-64. IMO, a `SmallVector<..., 1>` > >> -- cost of 64B -- seems fine. I'll start with this if I don't hear any > >> objections; we can optimize later if necessary. > >> > >> Otherwise, I could hack together a custom vector-like obj...

...ewer functions than instructions, we can afford to store the > >> attachments directly on the `Function` instead of off in the > >> `LLVMContext`. > >> > >> It's not clear to me just how precious memory is in `Function`; IIRC > >> it's sitting at 168B right now for x86-64. IMO, a `SmallVector<..., 1>` > >> -- cost of 64B In case anyone's trying to figure out where I got 64B from: 1. 3 * sizeof(void *) + sizeof(std::pair<unsigned, void *>) 2. 3 * 8B + 16B 3. 48B !? + 16B 4. 64B There's an error in line 3 :/....

Hi all, I am looking at securing a web server using the FreeBSD MAC Framework. To make things clear I will call the hosted users "web users". Those are the issues I am dealing with: ** Network Security ** - Web users shouldn't be able to connect to reserved local ports apart from 25(smtp); 80(http); 443(https) and 3306(MySQL) Solution: run the web server and web users shell in