search for: gced

Dear list, I am trying to implement a publish-subscribe mechanism in for an embedded R interpreter. But somehow my registered closures seem to get collected by the GC, even though I have protected them. I have reducted my code to the following sample. Sorry if it is a little verbose. The first couple of call of calls still work, but at some point one of the callbacks (callback1 in my

...nature Users cant connect to the 3.6 shares with it enabled They can connect to the 4.2.3 shares We have tried server side smb.conf settings but no luck They can only connect when the client registry key is disabled (and this violates a STIG) Anyone seen this? Thoughts? Thx tim Tim Reardon - GCED/GCFA/GCIH/GISP/GSEC RS/GIS CX Systems Administrator ERDC-CRREL Hanover,NH 03755 603-646-4332 Timothy.P.Reardon at usace.army.mil

Awesome! I got lld running but it GCed all my sections away. :-) I'll keep experimenting with it. ~Scott On Mon, May 1, 2017, at 07:11 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 30 April 2017 at 23:47, Scott Shawcroft via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Ok, thanks! I got it going that way. I'd still love...

...utput can't fit the large offsets, so the output is invalid/broken. So that >output would be broken before the postprocessing step could run to compact things. Right. So then it could be some API that takes .debug_* sections from linker, takes relocations, additional info, like info about GCed/ICFed sections. It could rebuild debug data, rebuild relocations and return it back to linker, so it could take deduplicated debug info, perform updated relocations and produce output. Does not feel nice honestly. It is definetely seems easier to do all of that on linker side instead. George....

...an I promote such a location to an SSA register? The rules for the stack location is the same as any address-taken location. I don’t think the fact that the generated address is a managed pointer should make a difference. - What does it mean to collect a stack location? The stack location is not GCed or relocated. For a reported managed pointer, if the referenced location is outside the bounds of the GC-heap, the runtime leaves it alone. - Can I merge stack allocations that are GC pointers? Can I re-use them? What semantics do I get? - Do GC pointers to stack locations have any different alias...

...https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activesupport/lib/active_support/core_ext/proc.rb ? if i run my application for long enough time i start getting errors like this: RuntimeError: symbol table overflow (symbol __bind_1328993330_18...) apparently it''s because symbols are never GCed and rails generates one every time this proc extension is used because method names are implicitly converted to symbols Best Regards, MM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To view this discussion on the web visit...

...log entries available. - Safepoints are necessary, both for the scheduler system to work right, and for the GC. The thread specific data I just mentioned are assumed to be overwritten at each safepoint. In between safepoints, however, it can be assumed to be non-volatile. - All pointers to GCed objects are represented as pairs of pointers. Which pointer is in use depends on the GC status word. - If the GC status indicates that GC is underway, all writes to GC memory must be logged before reaching the next safe point. Multiple writes to the same location only need to be logged once...

Ok, thanks! I got it going that way. I'd still love to hear from anyone off list working on similar stuff. ~Scott On Sun, Apr 30, 2017, at 03:32 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 03:18:35PM -0700, Scott Shawcroft via llvm-dev > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I've been doing a ton of embedded work (bare metal ARM Cortex M0+ and > > M4, hopefully RISCV

On 7/30/2013 7:41 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > I've not been following this thread at all. However, skimming the original > post, I fail to find a nice summary of what problem is trying to be solved. The proposal is trying to garbage collect symbols that are not referenced during the link step. In addition this proposal can be extended to keep frequently called functions/data closer

Rafael, You seems to be the person who added --start-lib and --end-lib to gold (*1), so I think you are the best person to ask about it. :) What is the intended use case of the options? Do you think we should support that in LLD? If we want to support that, then I think we can think of two implementation strategies: - Link object files between --start-lib and --end-lib normally and garbage

I've not been following this thread at all. However, skimming the original post, I fail to find a nice summary of what problem is trying to be solved. By reading the rest of the thread I divine that the goal is faster links and better dead code stripping? Making that clearer would help. Naming your sections something other than "safe" (which has *very* different connotations) would

Hey, campineros. And many good handshakes to zimbatm for getting some patches applied. So, yeah, I''d really like to get rid of any serious dependancies with this 1.6 release. Anything that''s not in stdlib has to go. Of course, camping-omnibus will still assume the whole ActiveRecord, Markaby, Mongrel setup that''s in the history books. Metaid can be removed and

...not relate only to -function-sections case but for other DWARF reducing questions also. 1. [llvm-dev] [lldb-dev] [LLD] How to get rid of debug info of sections deleted    by garbage collector     http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-September/126282.html 2. [lldb-dev] LLDB behaviour for GCed sections     http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2017-March/012081.html 3. [llvm-dev] [RFC] - Deduplication of debug information in linkers (LLD).     http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-December/119470.html 4. [llvm-dev] [DWARF] De-segregating type units and compile units     http...

>*nod* That's been the historic ELF+DWARF approach, but both MacOS (with dsyms+DWARF) and Windows >(COFF+CodeView+PDB) don't do it that way, and instead involve the linker to a degree. >Mostly I'm wondering if it'd be reasonable to (and if anyone would be interested in doing it) do >something more like the PDB support - fully debug-aware linking. Honestly saying I only

Currently, the alloca instruction always allocates in the generic address space (0). This proposal is to extend the semantics of alloca instruction to allow allocation in any specified address space. Proposed Syntax <result> = alloca [inalloca] <type> [, <ty> <NumElements>] [, align <alignment>] [, addrspace <num>] ; yields type addrspace(num)*:result

The following series of patches fill in most of the gaps in the OCaml bindings to libxl, to make them useful for clients such as xapi/xenopsd (from XCP). There are a number of bugfixes to the existing bindings as well. I have an experimental version of xenopsd that successfully uses the new bindings. An earlier version of the first half of the series was submitted to the last by Ian Campbell on