search for: _are_

Hi, list. I know this information won't be useful to most of you. I'm getting this error: preloader: Warning: failed to reserve range 00010000-00110000 err:dosmem:setup_dos_mem Cannot use first megabyte for DOS address space, please report I'm running wine 1.0.1 on a linux powerpc box. The error doesn't affect the applications I tried (winecfg, winemine, a flash PE binary...).

On Jan 31, 2011, at 7:27 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> >> If one is not supposed to use svn (the official blessed >> LLVM SCM) on "our side," pray tell, what _are_ we supposed to use? > > Because LLVM chose to use svn at some point on the past (when > distributed tools were not so mature and undestood as they are now) and > because there is no enough perception of the advantages associated with > a change, it is no excuse for you not doing wha...

...other compiler's -O2 and -Os levels > is just as interesting as comparing -O3 vs -O3. > My thinking was that, for instance, -02 for GCC and -02 for LLVM(-GCC) do not necessarily mean the same thing, they may be not /commensurable/. But perhaps, my ignorance, you are saying that they _are_, that LLVM assigns the same types of optimizations as GCC to the different levels. Regards, Stefano

From: Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob at suespammers.org> > Btw, don't quote me on this one :) > I'm only 90% sure of the hotswapping capabilities, and less than 50% > sure about the price :) There _are_ systems with hot-swap CPUs, memory and/or, PCI[-X] slots. They are _not_ commodity and pricey, and require OS-level support. In fact, I believe Linux 2.6 has some support for hot-swap -- at least at the PCI[-X] level, if not memory and possibly CPU as well. It requires extensive support though fo...

...rs. The only "difference" I've been able to find is that according to the O'Reilly book <strong> and <emphasis> are semantic tags, while <b> and <i> are physical, but, most browsers render them the same way (unless you've played subtle games with CSS). _Are_ there any browsers that render them differently? /anton

...serted where they might clobber CCR but it also prevents the load instruction from being rematerialized because it defines a physical register (TargetInstrInfo::isReallyTriviallyReMaterializableGeneric()). I've tried to take the approach that's used by the X86 target, in which instructions _are_ trivially rematerializable even if they implicitly define the condition code (EFLAGS) but must take care not to clobber EFLAGS if it's live at the point where the instruction is rematerialized. However, because my original load instruction implicitly defines CCR, and this isn't marked as de...

lol On Feb 1, 2011, at 0:00, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Jan 31, 2011, at 7:27 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > >>> >>> If one is not supposed to use svn (the official blessed >>> LLVM SCM) on "our side," pray tell, what _are_ we supposed to use? >> >> Because LLVM chose to use svn at some point on the past (when >> distributed tools were not so mature and undestood as they are now) and >> because there is no enough perception of the advantages associated with >> a change, it is no excuse f...

...and -Os >> levels is just as interesting as comparing -O3 vs -O3. > > My thinking was that, for instance, -02 for GCC and -02 for LLVM(- > GCC) do not necessarily mean the same thing, they may be not / > commensurable/. > But perhaps, my ignorance, you are saying that they _are_, that LLVM > assigns the same types of optimizations as GCC to the different > levels. Right, we want them to be roughly comparable. O0 -> best debug experience, fastest compile times. O2 -> optimize without bloating the code too much and without burning *too* many cycles. O3 -&...

...> a C+ + function to be inlined, one shouldn't define it inline. >> >> > > You must not have written a lot of C++ template then. (Ha!) > You don't have the choice in this case, just check your STL header. I don't think that how standard library or STL headers _are_ written determines how they _should be_ written. (Templates don't force us to write excessive inline functions: Leave off the inline keyword and write a member function outside the class template definition, and it's no longer an inline function.) > >> >> FWIW, I'...

...lloca. At least they all ignore all except the first one found. Later loop unroll comes and unrolls the loop and then suddenly we have two absolutely identical dbg.declares and the assert in addFragmentOffset() blows. Who's at fault? There is also an existing testcase that checks that there _are_ indeed two dbg.declares to a single alloca: Transforms/Inline/alloca-dbgdeclare-merge.ll Regards, Mikael On 09/19/2017 02:27 PM, Björn Steinbrink via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi, > > I'm hitting an assertion "overlapping or duplicate fragments" in the > DWARF codegen in addF...

...[1:3], ordered = TRUE) u <- 4:6 min(z[u > 4]) Error in Summary.factor(2:3, na.rm = FALSE) : min not meaningful for factors I agree that min is indeed not meaningful for not ordered factors, but it makes sense for ordered factors. Especially since z[3] < z[2] sort(z) _ARE_ defined and work as expected. Of course I can do something like sort(z[u>4])[1] but this does not enhance readability of my code. Thus, I overloaded Summary.ordered as follows: Summary.ordered <- function(..., na.rm) { ok <- switch(.Generic, max = , min = , range = TRUE, FAL...

...to make the assumption that consecutively-written globals at the source-code level map to consecutively-allocated globals at run-time. If so, and if any such language is using LLVM as a back-end, then changing that behavior at the LLVM level with _any_ optimization flag may break programs that _are_ well-formed according to the rules of their respective source language[s]. Regards, Abe

...ow long will a share mounted with "sec=krb5,multiuser" be accessible to the user? I am sorry for all these dummy questions, but I really find this matter hard to understand. Thank you very much for your help! >> Would be nice if you could use kerberos on the fly. > > You _are_ using it on the fly.The tgt is obtained without any > interaction on the part of the user. >> >> Unfortunately, I don't find such a detailed log in /var/log/messages. >> >>>> >>>> Also, if the user is not mounting his home share, but somebody >&...

...up this current thread. And to be clear, the root of the problem _is_ LLVM's using svn because it doesn't allow the kind of distributed development natural to an open source project. If one is not supposed to use svn (the official blessed LLVM SCM) on "our side," pray tell, what _are_ we supposed to use? > And for a git mirror that pushes changes to the LLVM svn repo, that's > *way* more tricky than it seems. I suspect for exactly the same reasons git-svn isn't tenable in general. svn is just bad business all around. -Dave

Hi, I'm hitting an assertion "overlapping or duplicate fragments" in the DWARF codegen in addFragmentOffset(). This originates from a duplicated dbg.declare intrinsic, declaring the same fragment twice. The duplicated call was generated by the jump threading pass. I have a patch (see below) that removes simply such duplicates, but I'm not sure whether that is the right

...the MingW32 pre-built binaries. (cmd.exe chokes on the pipe > into sed, causing the whole construct to fail.) > > If the first nm finds any dependencies at all, the by-hand version > won't run. It's currently optimized for MingW32 nm. You know, now that you mention it why _are_ there two versions of this bit? If there's a concern about sed possibly being broken, we could just remove sed altogether and let perl handle it: Index: GenLibDeps.pl =================================================================== --- GenLibDeps.pl (revision 79390) +++ GenLibDeps.pl (w...

...server applications in your countless other posts. "Builds" _do_ often take memory and disk into account (especially memory latency, which _can_ actually be worse on P4 DDR2 platforms than some old EDO platforms ;-). I was just trying to "open your mind" to the fact that there _are_ applications where an 8-way, NUMA/SBUS solution _might_ just be usable. Maybe not for you, but for some applications, especially at the price point. That's _all_ I was saying. I noted others were also trying to give statements that were good reasons. You may think they are not solutions wor...

...re they might clobber CCR but it also prevents the load instruction from being rematerialized because it defines a physical register (TargetInstrInfo::isReallyTriviallyReMaterializableGeneric()). > > I've tried to take the approach that's used by the X86 target, in which instructions _are_ trivially rematerializable even if they implicitly define the condition code (EFLAGS) but must take care not to clobber EFLAGS if it's live at the point where the instruction is rematerialized. However, because my original load instruction implicitly defines CCR, and this isn't marked as de...

David Vandevoorde a écrit : > > I don't think those are _good_ reasons though: If one doesn't want a C+ > + function to be inlined, one shouldn't define it inline. > > You must not have written a lot of C++ template then. You don't have the choice in this case, just check your STL header. > > FWIW, I've been involved in a couple of attempts by

...Aan: lingpanda101 at gmail.com > CC: samba > Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] Rights issue on GPO > > @LPH van Belle > I did tried (and still use) "acl_xattr:ignore system acls = yes" as shown > on the first mail of that thread. And even using that rights errors on GPO > files _are_ an issue. Otherwise that thread won't have been opened of > course : ) > > Regarding how we decided to workaround almost definitively with that was > to > give every users and groups in AD some xID, also those in CN=Builtin and > CN=Users. We also cleaned our idmap.ldb to kee...