search for: modernises

This works for me on Centos 5.6. It may assist newcomers to the Linux world of Centos. whois 51.51.51.51 produces a normal and conventional display of data. However since ARIN, the North American registrar of IP addresses, "modernised" its WHOIS processing, a query to whois 64.64.64.64 will produce a one line summary of possible matches, which always includes ARIN, but omits the

Hello, I'm working with an employer that is looking to hire someone to be responsible for the modernisation of their on prem environment. There will be lots of VMware and traditional sysadmin work; moving into more of a Kubernetes/ Python/infra-as-code heavy role only once the migration project is completed (say 12 months). Consequently I had hoped that some members of this group may like to

...ising which iterators to use, when and how? Or have advice they can give here in this forum if such documentation does not exist (I haven't found it if it does exist)? I think it would be really useful information in general, and since our code is originally derived from LLVM v2.7, as LLVM modernises, we often have to make tweaks to code built a long time ago to get it working again. The trick of adding '&*' works, but is deeply inelegant and error-prone, and I'm pretty sure that it can be made a lot cleaner if we use the right iterator for the job. Thanks for your advice,...

I note that there was a talk recently at EuroLLVM SPIR-V and LLVM about and so I want to get this message out soon so as to avoid duplicated effort. I have an up to date backend for SPIR-V on an up to date fork (~2-3 weeks behind) of LLVM, transplanted and “modernised” from Khronos’ SPIRV-LLVM that I plan on integrating into LLVM trunk. While it is usable in it’s current form there are several

Thanks very much Eric for taking the time to carefully explain this to me. So if I am the author of the backend for a new processor technology, or willing to modernise my existing implementation, you would recommend that the ‘-mcpu’ option is deprecated and probably best not used at all, or perhaps just as a synonym for ‘-march + -mtune’? The first part of the target triple guides the

TL;DR: I am proposing to add the GCC C Torture suite [1], as an additional external source of tests for the “nightly” test suite. If you are willing to review the patch, it is here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66887 Background: While working on the RISC-V backend, we have found it useful to use additional test suites beyond the in-tree Clang and LLVM tests and the LLVM nightly tests, in order to

Hello, Me and four other students at Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Sweden are in the startup phase for an interesting project utilizing Xen. We have been asked to modernise and improve the performance of a router simulation package called Crab[1]. Currently Crab runs a few instances of UML and inside each guest OS Quagga[2] is run. Quagga is a routing daemon with interface similar

On 4 August 2016 at 17:31, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > (1) The list says nothing about using (appropiate) LLVM infrastructure > like the MC subsystem. Should it be a requirements for (new) targets to > support the full source-to-object chain? Hi Joerg, This is a clear task for code review, not target inclusion policy. This list is

Hi, You will be aware of https://weakdh.org/ by now, I presume; the take-home seems to be that 1024-bit DH primes might well be too weak. I'm wondering what (if anything!) you propose to do about this issue, and what Debian might do for our users? openssh already prefers ECDH, which must reduce the impact somewhat, although the main Windows client (PuTTY) doesn't support ECDH yet. But

Hi Martin, On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 1:18 PM Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote: > Thanks Eric, > > > > After the original reply to my query I had a good look at the GCC > documentation for these options, and what I discovered is that “there is no > consensus” in GCC. Basically, saying do what GCC does was a non-answer as > it clarified nothing.

Folks, In recent discussions about accepting the Lanai back-end as official (built by default), there was the idea that we should have some official guidelines, if not rules, that all targets must (should?) follow when requesting to be added upstream, and later, to be officially supported. Here's a list of what more or less converged into the thread with my personal bias. Must haves to be

Thanks Eric, After the original reply to my query I had a good look at the GCC documentation for these options, and what I discovered is that “there is no consensus” in GCC. Basically, saying do what GCC does was a non-answer as it clarified nothing. X86 has deprecated ‘-mcpu’ in favour of ‘-mtune’, and it uses ‘-mtune’ to mean that the scheduling, etc. should be biased in favour of more

A thread was started over the summer to discuss the timeline for bumping LLVM up to Visual Studio 2015 to enable the use of various new language features. Currently the ETA for this is sometime in mid-October, so within 2-3 weeks. With this happening imminently, I thought it would be worth tossing this out there and seeing what people think. With VS on 2015, the major lagging compiler is going