search for: coutant

Hi all, I have no experience with wireless VoIP. Do you have some quality wireless phones to suggest ? Thanks in advance. Sylvain COUTANT http://www.adviseo.net/

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of > Davide Italiano via llvm-dev > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 10:55 AM > To: ramana.venkat83 at gmail.com; Cary Coutant > Cc: llvm-dev; LLDB > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [lldb-dev] [LLD] How to get rid of debug info of > sections deleted by garbage collector > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 8:35 PM Venkata Ramanaiah Nalamothu via > lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi,...

On 19.11.2020 03:21, Cary Coutant wrote: >>> If the .debug_str section *by itself* exceeds 4GB, then yes any string >>> with a 32-bit reference to it must be in the first 4GB. Strings that >>> have only 64-bit references to them can be sorted to the end of the >>> section, if necessary. I would...

Hello there! I made Debian, Xen 2.0 and CLUSTER/GFS work together :). I wrote this little tutorial to help you setup yours. Any feedback is welcome, except comments about W3C validation of my code :p Note that I am talking about compiling CLUSTER with your XEN kernel, I don''t explain how to setup a working cluster. You can find how to setup those in official RedHat docs. You will see,

Hi, After compiling an example.cpp file with "-c -ffunction-sections" and linking with "--gc-sections" (used ld.lld), I am still seeing debug info for the sections deleted by garbage collector in the generated executable. Are there any compiler/linker options and/or other tools in LLVM to get rid of the above mentioned unneeded debug info? If such options does not exist,

Hello, I''m setting up a Xen system since I have diferent choices to create the domU''s partitions: raw partition, lvm, files. I''ve done some tests with hdparm and it all seems to be the same. Can anyone, please, share with me what if the best method. Best regards, Luis _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list

...ote: > >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of >> > Davide Italiano via llvm-dev >> > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 10:55 AM >> > To: ramana.venkat83 at gmail.com; Cary Coutant >> > Cc: llvm-dev; LLDB >> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [lldb-dev] [LLD] How to get rid of debug info of >> > sections deleted by garbage collector >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 8:35 PM Venkata Ramanaiah Nalamothu via >> > lldb-dev <lldb-dev...

...tly Clang "-g" flag emits full debug info, which is fine for debugging, but increases the binary size significantly. It may be useful to produce less debug info, that is still enough for collecting nice stack traces with file names and line numbers, but would introduce less overhead. Cary Coutant made a patch which does this for GCC (it didn't hit trunk yet) - reduces debug info to only descriptions of functions, extern variables, line number tables and inlined subroutine info by setting "-gmlt" ("minimum line table") or "-g1" flags. (See this patch at http...

> I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the options > would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the options, and am of the > opinion that we should force validation on the linker side (use of any > option which the linker doesn't support in this form can be fatal). > Starting small is the best way, with `-l` and `-L` as a starting point. I >

On Jan 7, 2018 5:02 PM, "Cary Coutant via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the options > would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the options, and am of the > opinion that we should force validation on the linker side (use of any...

On 8 January 2018 at 08:14, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Jan 7, 2018 5:02 PM, "Cary Coutant via llvm-dev" < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> > I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the >> options >> > would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the options, and am >> of the >> > opinion...

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Jan 7, 2018 5:02 PM, "Cary Coutant via llvm-dev" < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the > options > > would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the options, and am of > the > > opinion that we should force valida...

> On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:02 PM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the options >> would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the options, and am of the >> opinion that we should force validation on the linker side (use of any >&g...

..."-g" flag emits full debug info, which is fine for debugging, but increases the binary size significantly. > It may be useful to produce less debug info, that is still enough for collecting nice stack traces with file names and line numbers, > but would introduce less overhead. Cary Coutant made a patch which does this for GCC (it didn't hit trunk yet) - > reduces debug info to only descriptions of functions, extern variables, line number tables and inlined subroutine info > by setting "-gmlt" ("minimum line table") or "-g1" flags. > (See thi...

...08:14, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev > >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jan 7, 2018 5:02 PM, "Cary Coutant via llvm-dev" > >>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> > I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the > >>> > options > >>> > would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the opti...

...t; wrote: > On 8 January 2018 at 08:14, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 7, 2018 5:02 PM, "Cary Coutant via llvm-dev" >>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> > I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the >>> > options >>> > would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the options, and am >>>...

> We've taken the '.relr.dyn' section from Cary's prototype, and implemented a > custom encoding to compactly represent the list of offsets. We're calling the > new compressed section '.relrz.dyn' (for relocations-relative-compressed). I'd suggest just using .relr.dyn -- your encoding is straightforward enough that I'd just make that the standard

...rent source code for each different linker their object is to be consumed by, nor does the compiler have to know about the different possible linkers. James On 9 January 2018 at 05:15, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:02 PM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the > options > >> would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the options, and am > of the > >> opinion that we should force validation on the l...

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Cary Coutant via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Given how ELF works I would expect an unknown section to simply end up > > in the output, but we can use SHF_EXCLUDE to avoid that. > > Yes, gold currently treats unknown section types pretty much the same > as PROGBI...

...at google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev >> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Jan 7, 2018 5:02 PM, "Cary Coutant via llvm-dev" >> >>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the >> >>> > options >> >>> > would be scary. I agree that we shoul...