search for: likelly

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

...-local variables can be > considered > > in the same way, no? > > They are considered in the same way, we also relax got access :-) > > The proposal is making the linker worse for our users to make our lifes > easier. I really don't think we should do it. > > It is likelly that we can code the existing optimization in a simpler > way. Even if we cannot, I don't think we should remove them. > > Linker relaxations are extremely convenient. We use the example you > gave (-fPIC .o in an executable) all the time in llvm. That way we build > only one .o...

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.