Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "4294967295u".
Did you mean:
4294967295
2004 May 17
2
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
...s. :)
>
Aside from this syntactic loop stuff, I was looking over gzip some more
and found another area that could be improved.
In gzip's longest_match function, part of the code generated by CBE
looks like this:
l13_shortcirc_next_2E_11:
l8_chain_length_2E_039 = (((l2_tmp_2E_182) ? (4294967295u) : (0u))) +
l8_chain_length_2E_1;
.. some other code ...
l13_loopcont_2E_0:
... some other code ...
l2_tmp_2E_182 = l8_tmp_2E_180 > l8_mem_tmp_2E_0;
if (l2_tmp_2E_182) {
goto l13_shortcirc_next_2E_11;
} else {
goto l13_UnifiedReturnBlock;
}
Basically it does that ch...
2004 May 09
0
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
> > I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C
> > compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code,
> > and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without
> > syntactic loops).
>
> Yup, this is EXACTLY what is
2002 Dec 18
0
[Bug 458] New: sshd crashes with "fatal: mm_malloc: size too big"
...uot; on each login
attempt. When I build it on a 64bit orign200 with the same OS version it works fine.
The problem seems to be the constant ULONG_MAX which is assigned to SIZE_T_MAX
in defines.h. I played around with the code and it seems like ULONG_MAX
evaluates to -1 even though it is defined as 4294967295U (by the way: what does
the U mean?) in /usr/include/limits.h.
I worked around this problem by replacing
#define SIZE_T_MAX ULONG_MAX
with
#define SIZE_T_MAX 4294967295
in defines.h before running make.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are...
2004 Sep 29
0
[LLVMdev] INT64_MIN
...: error C2065: 'INT64_MIN' :
undeclared identifier
I've attached a patch that define it right after the INT64_MAX, but I
think it's a better solution to define both in the specific #ifdef part
for VC in the same file, right after
#define INT32_MIN -2147483648
#define UINT32_MAX 4294967295U
If you are wondering WHY I used -0x8000000000000000 instead of
ñ9223372036854775808LL, well, with the latter I have:
llvm\include\llvm\Support\DataTypes.h(83) : error C2018: unknown
character '0x96'
---
Paolo Invernizzi
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-...
2007 Dec 20
1
64-bit R build with Studio 12 on Sparc v9
...d about not being able to build the manuals. Here are
the last several lines of the screen output from running make:
________________________________________________________________________
____
making pcre_chartables.d from pcre_chartables.c
"./pcre_internal.h", line 168: Illegal number 4294967295U
*** Error code 2
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `pcre_chartables.d'
Current working directory
/export/home/ploua/R_HOME/R-2.6.1/src/extra/pcre
*** Error code 1
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `R'
Current working directory
/export/home/ploua/R_HOME/R-2.6.1/src/extr...
2019 Jun 13
2
[RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for regular arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you intend to rely on wrapping behavior."
FWIW, the talks linked by Mehdi really do talk about these things and why I
don't think the really are the correct trade-off.
Even if you imagine an unsigned type that doesn't allow wrapping, I think
this is a really bad type. The problem is that you have made the most
common value of the type (zero in every study I'm aware of) be a boundary
condition. Today, it wraps to a huge value
2004 May 04
6
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
> I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C
> compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code,
> and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without
> syntactic loops).
Yup, this is EXACTLY what is going on.
I took this very simple C function:
int Array[1000];
void test(int
2011 Jun 02
48
[PATCH 0/9] libxl: disk configuration handling
This is v3 of my disk series. What were previously patches 01-06 have
been applied. These are the tested and updated remainder, addressing
the previous comments.
1 Preparatory work.
2-4 The new parser and its documentation.
5-6 Replace old parsers with calls to the new one.
7-8 Two features, one of them essential.
9 Basic test suite for disk string parsing, as adhoc script.