search for: directbuff

I don't think we should make flush virtual. Why do you need to do it? Can't you set up the base class to write to use the tail of the memory region as the buffer? On 24 April 2015 at 06:46, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Is this what you're thinking about? > The code is not tested yet, I'd like to know if the overall direction and >

...On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, we should do without virtual flush. The problem was raw_char_ostream > should not be flushed - it's always current - so I overloaded flush to a > no-op. A cleaner solution is attached, adding a DirectBuffer mode to the > raw_ostream. > > Also added a simple performance comparison project > between raw_char_ostream and raw_svector_ostream. On Window 7 x64 > machine, raw_char_ostream was three times faster than raw_svector_ostream > when the provided buffer size is large enough and t...

...at 8:02 PM, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Yes, we should do without virtual flush. The problem was raw_char_ostream >> should not be flushed - it's always current - so I overloaded flush to a >> no-op. A cleaner solution is attached, adding a DirectBuffer mode to the >> raw_ostream. >> >> Also added a simple performance comparison project >> between raw_char_ostream and raw_svector_ostream. On Window 7 x64 >> machine, raw_char_ostream was three times faster than raw_svector_ostream >> when the provided buffer si...

...; >>>>> Yes, we should do without virtual flush. The problem was > >>>>> raw_char_ostream should not be flushed - it's always current - so I > >>>>> overloaded flush to a no-op. A cleaner solution is attached, adding a > >>>>> DirectBuffer mode to the raw_ostream. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also added a simple performance comparison project between > >>>>> raw_char_ostream and raw_svector_ostream. On Window 7 x64 machine, > >>>>> raw_char_ostream was three times faster th...

...>>> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, we should do without virtual flush. The problem >>>> was raw_char_ostream should not be flushed - it's always current - so I >>>> overloaded flush to a no-op. A cleaner solution is attached, adding >>>> a DirectBuffer mode to the raw_ostream. >>>> >>>> Also added a simple performance comparison project >>>> between raw_char_ostream and raw_svector_ostream. On Window 7 x64 >>>> machine, raw_char_ostream was three times faster than raw_svector_ostream >>>&...

...lem was > >> >>>>> raw_char_ostream should not be flushed - it's always current - so > I > >> >>>>> overloaded flush to a no-op. A cleaner solution is attached, > adding > >> >>>>> a > >> >>>>> DirectBuffer mode to the raw_ostream. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Also added a simple performance comparison project between > >> >>>>> raw_char_ostream and raw_svector_ostream. On Window 7 x64 machine, > >> >>>>> raw_ch...

...rsions up to 1.6. WARNING: Class file 'java/nio/ByteBuffer' requires Java version 1.7. This JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. WARNING: Class file 'java/nio/Buffer' requires Java version 1.7. This JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. WARNING: Class file 'sun/nio/ch/DirectBuffer' requires Java version 1.7. This JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. WARNING: Class file 'java/lang/IllegalArgumentException' requires Java version 1.7. This JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. WARNING: Class file 'java/lang/OutOfMemoryError' requires Java versio...

...e 'java/nio/ByteBuffer' requires Java version 1.7. >> This JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. >> WARNING: Class file 'java/nio/Buffer' requires Java version 1.7. This >> JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. >> WARNING: Class file 'sun/nio/ch/DirectBuffer' requires Java version >> 1.7. This JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. >> WARNING: Class file 'java/lang/IllegalArgumentException' requires Java >> version 1.7. This JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. >> WARNING: Class file 'java/lang/OutOfM...

...RNING: Class file 'java/nio/ByteBuffer' requires Java version 1.7. > This JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. > WARNING: Class file 'java/nio/Buffer' requires Java version 1.7. This > JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. > WARNING: Class file 'sun/nio/ch/DirectBuffer' requires Java version > 1.7. This JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. > WARNING: Class file 'java/lang/IllegalArgumentException' requires Java > version 1.7. This JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. > WARNING: Class file 'java/lang/OutOfMemoryError'...

...ByteBuffer' requires Java version 1.7. >>> This JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. >>> WARNING: Class file 'java/nio/Buffer' requires Java version 1.7. This >>> JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. >>> WARNING: Class file 'sun/nio/ch/DirectBuffer' requires Java version >>> 1.7. This JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. >>> WARNING: Class file 'java/lang/IllegalArgumentException' requires Java >>> version 1.7. This JVM only supports Java versions up to 1.6. >>> WARNING: Class file '...

I also misunderstood :) So, in this case, the problem is that your version of openjdk is probably not supported. In fact, we only support the version 7u23 of openjdk :) You can find this version here: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/java-archive-downloads-javase7-521261.html#jdk-7u25-oth-JPR Currently, I'm modifying the internal design of vmkit and I'm not working

I guess I mispoke, I checked out the source from http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/vmkit/trunk. I thought this was vmkit2. I guess I was just referring to vmkit then. On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Gaël Thomas <gael.thomas00 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Adam, > > I don't know which repo you have used? Because only the llvm repo is > maintained (not the gforge one), and