search for: antispamm

Hi, Artur > %1 = tail call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr ([16 x > i8]* @.str, i32 0, i32 0), i32 %0) nounwind > %10 = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr ([11 x i8]* > @.str2, i32 0, i32 0), i32 5) nounwind > > Instruction::isSameOperationAs() returns false for those two. Is it a > bug or I misunderstood something? These are two

Hi Anton, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Minor comments: > Thanks for your comments and your patience, I'll now check the style four times before I send anything ;) >> + Instruction *instr = >> + const_cast<Instruction*>(dynamic_cast<const >> Instruction*>(*i)); >> > Sounds hacky. Why do you need to cast away const?

...= 0; i < a; ++i) if (A->getOperand(i)->getType()->getTypeID() != B->getOperand(i)->getType()->getTypeID()) return false; return true; } I'm not sure if it's too much. Thanks! Artur P.S. Sorry for that [Junk...] in few mails. It's our "great" antispammer, I will switch to gmail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090407/becbfa88/attachment.html>

Here's a thought I just thunk, folks: some scum, apparently in eastern Europe, has harvested my email, and is using it in the Reply-To: in its spamming efforts. Now, I realize that some mails go out from noreply, but other than that, is there a good reason why a mailserver would not be configured to send delivery failure to *both* Reply-To and From? mark