search for: likelli

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > > tl;dr: TLSDESC have solved most problems in formerly inefficient TLS > access > > models, so I think we can drop TLS relaxation support from lld. > > > > lld's code to handle

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> writes: > > >> So I am strongly against removing either non TLSDESC support of support > >> for the relaxations. > >> > > > > It's still pretty arguable. By default, compilers use General Dynamic > model

hello list (and martin) ;x i have now composed my final(?) policy routing design. the goals i had when beginning with this, for you that have not follow mine and martins thread, was to 1) only let 192.168.1/24 to see all routes, 2) not route between defined networks, except to and from 192.168.1/24 and 3) not defined networks should only be able to reach 192.168.1/24. this might sound simple.