search for: batterseapower

Hi! I've been tearing my hair out trying to get DOS file attributes to work with Samba. Basically, I have it all set up so the user mbolingbroke (me) can write to this Supernova Backup share I have - this all works fine. However, since this is going to backup my Windows machine I want to preserve the file attributes. To this end, I've set up mapping of the attributess using "map

Hi! Thanks to the sterling advice of Daniel Beschorner, I have managed to get DOS file attributes working via extended attributes. However, I have just noticed that DOS folder attributes are not being preserved! Is this a limitation of samba? I can't find any options that would let me turn this on, and I can see how it would make sense with the old "map * = yes" approach to DOS

Hi, I'm writing a custom alias analyser for the Glasgow Haskell Compiler's LLVM backend to teach LLVM that our explicitly-represented stack cannot alias with any heap pointer. It works, but I've hit an issue with opt's handling of alias analysers; if you specify -ghc-aa on the opt command line then LLVM only uses that analyser until (I think) a pass runs that invalidates the

David Peixotto <dmp <at> rice.edu> writes: > I am seeing the wf loop get optimized just fine with llvm 2.8 (and almost as good with head). I rechecked this and am I actually seeing the same results as you. I think I must have made a stupid mistake in my tests before - sorry for the noise. However, I found that we have a phase ordering problem which is preventing us getting as much

Duncan Sands <baldrick <at> free.fr> writes: > > > I see the same with clang. I'm not sure why the optimizers do so much better > > when they can see that sp is a local array (the special initial values don't > > matter). > > It is the scalar replacement of aggregates pass that puts everything into > registers when sp is a local array. Yes, I

Hi, The Glasgow Haskell Compiler LLVM backend is generating a lot of code which appears to be optimised by LLVM quite poorly. The problem is demonstrated by this C source code: int wf(int sp[]) { if (sp[0] == 0) { return sp[2] + sp[3]; } else { sp[3] = sp[3] + (sp[1] * 5); sp[2] = (sp[2] + sp[0]) + 1; sp[1] = sp[1] - 1; sp[0] = sp[0] - 1;