search for: encompasing

Hi all of both RoR Core and TMail. You may know me better as the maintainer of TMail. However, TMail has been a bit difficult to get working with Ruby 1.9, so in the light of that, I sat down over the past few months and wrote myself an all encompasing mail gem. Mail passes all of its hundreds of specs equally well in Ruby 1.8.6, 1.8.7 and 1.9.1. Mail reads every email in the TMail test suite without crashing, and is designed to never crash on parsing input (I know, can''t really say that, but it is very resilient to crap). The point i...

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Anderson, Todd A <todd.a.anderson at intel.com<mailto:todd.a.anderson at intel.com>> wrote: For the past few years, my group in Intel Labs has been working on a project similar to LLVM and C--, and perhaps our experience in handling roots and stack walking could be useful in deciding how LLVM should evolve in the GC area. Our project is called Pillar

My thoughts are many, and inline below: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Anderson, Todd A <todd.a.anderson at intel.com > wrote: > For the past few years, my group in Intel Labs has been working on a > project similar to LLVM and C--, and perhaps our experience in handling > roots and stack walking could be useful in deciding how LLVM should evolve > in the GC area. Our

For the past few years, my group in Intel Labs has been working on a project similar to LLVM and C--, and perhaps our experience in handling roots and stack walking could be useful in deciding how LLVM should evolve in the GC area. Our project is called Pillar (you can see our paper "Pillar: A Parallel Implementation Language" in Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing 2008 for a

On 07.07.2011 08:31, Nate Fries wrote: > On 7/6/2011 6:24 PM, Talin wrote: >> The LLVM code generators and analysis passes have a much more >> thorough knowledge of SSA value lifetimes than frontends do, and >> therefore could avoid spilling and reloading of values when it wasn't >> needed. > Although this would indeed be nice, it is not done by similar >

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Anderson, Todd A <todd.a.anderson at intel.com>wrote: > ** ** > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Anderson, Todd A < > todd.a.anderson at intel.com> wrote:**** > > For the past few years, my group in Intel Labs has been working on a > project similar to LLVM and C--, and perhaps our experience in handling > roots and stack

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Tom Brown wrote: > We have a few questions about the current state of GC. Ok. :) > We decided to start (and finish?) our work by finishing SemiSpace. Sounds good. > process_pointer is meant to move objects from CurSpace to OtherSpace. > How can it find pointers to a moved object? This is entirely up to you, as you're basically implementing the semispace

We have a few questions about the current state of GC. We decided to start (and finish?) our work by finishing SemiSpace. process_pointer is meant to move objects from CurSpace to OtherSpace. How can it find pointers to a moved object? How does it know the size of each object? Assuming we are writing a GC that will only work from llvm assembly our best option seems to be forcing the assembly code

One work-around would be to create a hidden share that only Domain Admins can access. The use "force user=root" on that share. Then you'll be able to change ACL's and not be root. Josh > -----Original Message----- > From: Tanstaafl [mailto:tanstaafl_bh@netzero.net] > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:36 PM > To: 'Samba List' > Subject: Re: [Samba] Changing