search for: convinent

>Not quite sure what you mean by "on linker side" - but I guess you mean using linker features like comdats etc, rather than DWARF parsing/reassembly/etc. I mean that it probably not a good idea for external library. I feel it is much more convinent to do such proccessing in a linker. Linker do and knows much more about things like sections that are ICFed, eliminated, about COMDATs and many things like strings dedups. So it can rebuild relocations and perform DWARF deduplication probably in a faster/more convinent way probably than external...

>Postprocessing (ie: running a tool on the fully linked binary with the debug info we have today, and having the tool reprocess the debug info to make it more >compact) is an option, but wouldn't help address the problem you started with - that the output can't fit the large offsets, so the output is invalid/broken. So that >output would be broken before the postprocessing step

...ect, so in that case we looks want to error out). Have last thoughts/question about this though :) Currently clang -gdwarf-5 -fdebug-types-section​ works. And so linker can deduplicate types. Though that probably violates specification saying there is no more .debug_type sections. But behavior is convinent for users of -fdebug-types-section. I do not know how transition from v4 to v5 will happen/happens (or how transition between dwarf standarts usually happens). I suppose one day clang just will start to produce v5 debug data by default. And at the same time multiple .debug_info sections mentioned i...

...e time to finish a full set review, I have been wating for several weeks. I personly think it's not premature to commit TILE-Gx backend into mainline and default disable. Because: 1. TILE-Gx finished the regression test & test-suite test. 2. TILE-Gx buildbot will be setup, so it will be convinent for both community & Tilera company to monitor the status. So should I keep waiting the full set review? or it's OK to commit and default disabled? --- Regards, Jiong Tilera Corporation. > one point. > > Joerg > _______________________________________________ > llvm-commi...

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 04:59:49PM +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote: > With Chris's reply you also got the general OK to upstream the > patch, _AFTER_ the actual patches have been reviewed. One thing I was asking on IRC for is whether it makes sense for new backends to be committable in incremental steps. Especially for a complete backend like this, e.g. the asm parser would make a

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 11:40 AM George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > Or following workflow: > > Split dwarf is used to make linker to proccess less, like relocations, > right ? > Partly, though the main motivation as far as I know, was to have to provide fewer bytes to the linker at all. That's why something like Apple's scheme (leave the debug info in

Hola a todos: efectivamente, esas son las librerias que convine tener instaladas. Llevaré los datos que utilizaremos en un pendrive (por si acaso falla la wifi) y también el *.md del código para poder seguir la demo sin escribir todo el código! Para esto, yo creo que lo mejor es abrir el *.md con R Studio. Esta tarde nos vemos! -- Beatriz Martínez @_bmartinez_

...lized that that I should have sent this to llvm-commits >instead. Apologies for that. > >I have some further fixes. Is Phabricator preferred these days for >submitting patches? > >Thanks, > >Mark Hi Mark, committed with testcase r290174. Yes, we usually use phab as it is convinent for doing reviews. George.

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 09:24:35AM +0800, Hu Tao wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:58:02PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:23:35AM +0800, Hu Tao wrote: > > [...] > > > > Thanks for these patches. I will push all of them shortly *except*: > > Thanks! > > > > > > New API: btrfs_balance_status > > >

Hi all, I have something like this : user has_many lists list has_many items I want to validate that the currently logged-in user is the owner of the list an item is being added to. I can do it in "item/create" by doing something like : class item def create @list = List.new( @params[ "list" ][ "id" ] ) if @session[ "user"

Hola Beatriz, Si me pasas el *.md lo subo a un Dropbox y si no es muy grande lo subo a R-Hispano (linkándolo a la agenda).... Saludos, Carlos. El 29 de octubre de 2013 15:56, Gregorio R. Serrano <grserrano@ccee.ucm.es>escribió: > Hola. > > ¿Nos podemos descargar el material de alguna parte antes de ir? > > Gracias > > > El 29 de octubre de 2013 14:58, Beatriz

>If you're interested in things you can do in the linker for this - you might consider something more aggressive: Fully DWARF aware deduplication. > >This could be done hopefully by reusing some of the code in the dsymutil implementation in LLVM. > >This would be much more effective (and without the possible context-sensitive tradeoffs) than using type units. >Though

I am posting this in case someone need help.. ========================================================= YOU THA MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No sure how I will repay you, but anything you need, just let me know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!!!! -- Executing GotoIf("SIP/2007-12c7", "0?4") in new stack

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:58:02PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:23:35AM +0800, Hu Tao wrote: > [...] > > Thanks for these patches. I will push all of them shortly *except*: Thanks! > > > New API: btrfs_balance_status > > New API: btrfs_scrub_status > > - These ones currently dump the status into a string. Generally

...iew, I have been > wating for several weeks. > > I personly think it's not premature to commit TILE-Gx backend into > mainline and default disable. Because: > > 1. TILE-Gx finished the regression test & test-suite test. > 2. TILE-Gx buildbot will be setup, so it will be convinent for both > community & Tilera company to monitor the status. > > So should I keep waiting the full set review? or it's OK to commit and > default disabled? > > The AArch64 backend was committed fairly quickly after being proposed for inclusion, and they did not split up th...

I'm pleased to see another project increasing compatibility with windows clients, by the addition of NTLM login support, but I'm a bit worried about a few implementation details, and hope to offer an alternate approach. I mean no disrespect to those who have implemented to the code so far, but I feel that the idea of 'everybody re-implement NTLM' is prone to failure. Firstly, to

Hola. ¿Nos podemos descargar el material de alguna parte antes de ir? Gracias El 29 de octubre de 2013 14:58, Beatriz Martínez <mtnezb@gmail.com>escribió: > Hola a todos: > > efectivamente, esas son las librerias que convine tener instaladas. > > Llevaré los datos que utilizaremos en un pendrive (por si acaso falla la > wifi) y también el *.md del código para poder

el material lo podéis descargar de aquí http://goo.gl/PT30FB El 29 de octubre de 2013 15:59, Carlos Ortega <cof@qualityexcellence.es>escribió: > Hola Beatriz, > > Si me pasas el *.md lo subo a un Dropbox y si no es muy grande lo subo a > R-Hispano (linkándolo a la agenda).... > > Saludos, > Carlos. > > > El 29 de octubre de 2013 15:56, Gregorio R. Serrano

The Asterisk Development Team has announced the release of Asterisk 1.2.37, 1.4.27.1, 1.6.0.19, and 1.6.1.11. These releases are available for immediate download at http://downloads.asterisk.org/pub/telephony/asterisk/ These releases have been created in response to a SIP remote crash vulnerability. Additionally, Asterisk versions 1.4.27.1, 1.6.0.19, and 1.6.1.11 also contain an SDP regression

The Asterisk Development Team has announced the release of Asterisk 1.2.37, 1.4.27.1, 1.6.0.19, and 1.6.1.11. These releases are available for immediate download at http://downloads.asterisk.org/pub/telephony/asterisk/ These releases have been created in response to a SIP remote crash vulnerability. Additionally, Asterisk versions 1.4.27.1, 1.6.0.19, and 1.6.1.11 also contain an SDP regression