search for: nasal

...ut what the C language guarantees, but rather >>> (roughly speaking) how *they* would translate their code to assembly >>> language for the system or systems that they happen to know they're >>> targeting. An x86 programmer doesn't expect unaligned loads to invoke nasal >>> demons, but a SPARC programmer does. >>> >>> So if you unravel the thread of logic back through the undefined behaviors >>> made undefined for this reason, many of these cases of exploiting undefined >>> behavior are really an extension, on the compi...

...mmer is not thinking about what the C language guarantees, but rather > (roughly speaking) how *they* would translate their code to assembly > language for the system or systems that they happen to know they're > targeting. An x86 programmer doesn't expect unaligned loads to invoke nasal > demons, but a SPARC programmer does. > > So if you unravel the thread of logic back through the undefined behaviors > made undefined for this reason, many of these cases of exploiting undefined > behavior are really an extension, on the compiler's part, of the logic > "...

.../ --aircraft=c172p --airport=lfmd --nav1=1fgfs --fog-disable --timeofday=noon --fg-scenery=/home/bertrand/FlightGear/Scenery/e000n40/ --aircraft=c172p --airport=lfmd --nav1=109.95:45 nvfx_screen_get_param:94 - Warning: unknown PIPE_CAP 29 FGMultiplayMgr - No receiver port, Multiplayermode disabled Nasal runtime error: props.setAttribute() with invalid attribute at /usr/share/FlightGear/Nasal/props.nas, line 25 called from: /usr/share/FlightGear/Nasal/gui.nas, line 137 KI266 dme indicator #0 initialized loading scenario 'nimitz_demo' Mesa 7.11-devel implementation error: _mesa_texstore_...

...erting explicit checks. This almost always means memory corruption: for example a double free or a use after free can result in the program being hit by a signal, which then gets turned into an exception. Since the Ada language treats these kinds of things as "unbounded errors" (i.e. the nasal demon sort), there are no special semantics to preserve, so relying on signals is presumably fine. Things like dividing by zero are "bounded errors" (i.e. the consequences of this kind of error are carefully circumscribed), which is presumably why the compiler is very careful that Ada se...

...is not thinking about what the C > language guarantees, but rather (roughly speaking) how *they* would > translate their code to assembly language for the system or systems > that they happen to know they're targeting. An x86 programmer > doesn't expect unaligned loads to invoke nasal demons, but a SPARC > programmer does. > > > So if you unravel the thread of logic back through the undefined > behaviors made undefined for this reason, many of these cases of > exploiting undefined behavior are really an extension, on the > compiler's part, of the logic...

...onal info: * package version(s) = 2.8.0 LOG: KI266 dme indicator #0 initialized loading scenario 'nimitz_demo' PNG lib warning : Interlace handling should be turned on when using png_read_image PNG lib warning : Interlace handling should be turned on when using png_read_image Initializing Nasal Electrical System join_values_nofail:398 - failed to coalesce values join_values_nofail:398 - failed to coalesce values fgfs: nv50_pc.h:351: nv_alloc_instruction: Assertion `pc->num_instructions < 2048' failed. Aborted Steps to reproduce: 1)install 2) run 3) loading scenery 4) CRASH SE...

...9;t even matter -- but it obviously wasn't ideal; and when we chose the error values that got written in stone, we chose the errno values that Linux/x86 uses for the types of errors that seemed reasonable. What older servers sent is however not really defined, and therefore should be treated as nasal daemons. [...] > SHOULD NOT rather than MUST NOT, as a server may still choose to expose > non-standard errors over the wire if a client might benefit from those > errors, and a well-written client will squash non-standard errors > received over the wire back to EINVAL. Indeed; I thin...

As part of a project to clarify what behaviour of C implementations is actually relied upon in modern practice, and what behaviour is guaranteed by current mainstream implementations, we recently distributed a survey of 15 questions about C, https://goo.gl/AZXH3S. We were asking what C is in current mainstream practice: the behaviour that programmers assume they can rely on, the behaviour

...; >> language guarantees, but rather (roughly speaking) how *they* would > >> translate their code to assembly language for the system or systems > >> that they happen to know they're targeting. An x86 programmer > >> doesn't expect unaligned loads to invoke nasal demons, but a SPARC > >> programmer does. > >> > >> > >> So if you unravel the thread of logic back through the undefined > >> behaviors made undefined for this reason, many of these cases of > >> exploiting undefined behavior are really an exte...

...worrying about whether I'll be hard. With this stuff, I am always stiff, without fail. You have to experiment with the dosage and time lag. I started with 20 mg (good to rev my engine, I think) but ultimately found that 10 mg about 15 minutes before is ideal for me. Lower dosage means less nasal congestion and more feeling during . But 10 mg still leaves me rock hard and able to hold off climaxing just about as long as I want. This stuff rocks! PS: I am not that writer you think of! http://rhx.thegreatestbody.info/ct/index.php?pid=eph4748 no offers http://dnq.thegreatestbody.info/ct/...

On Jun 13, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >> There is really no alternative to putting EH edges on basic blocks if you're going to support preemptive asynchronous exceptions — some random multiply that gets hoisted out of a loop has to change exception handlers just in case that's where the PC lands during a signal. There isn't much point in complaining that doing so

On Jun 13, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > Although I believe asynchronous signals are also best handled by the runtime. They can be converted into cooperative exceptions. I have to say I can't see the value in resuming from an interrupt at literally any instruction address. For what it's worth, SEH (which inspires a lot of this) allows blocks of code to be protected from

...ions for that: * switch to memmove * add a branch to detect such case However, he's not happy with either of them as they slow the decompression down to handle a case that will never happen to almost everyone. Furthermore, we don't see anything that could fail with memcpy (aside from nasal elephants, but we're used to them). The copied data may be corrupted, but it's not a failure as the compressed data is corrupted already. We see another solution, to write a custom memcpy. We'd like to avoid it for now as getting portable performance has proved to be a problem. So I...

On Jun 14, 2011, at 2:11 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > gcc Ada turns signals into exceptions. As far as I know it does this > completely asynchronously, and the fact that LLVM doesn't support this > is rather bad as far as Ada is concerned. That said, the Ada front-end You're saying that it turns asynch signals like SIGHUP (which can occur on any machine instruction) into signals?

> So... Are 40 and 41 the only legal behaviors or are there more? Since the program invokes undefined behavior, anything goes. The compiler is perfectly within its rights to send a rude email to your department chair if you compile that code. John

On Jun 12, 2011, at 5:53 PM, John McCall wrote: > > On Jun 12, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Sohail Somani wrote: > >> On 11-06-12 7:40 PM, John McCall wrote: >>> On Jun 12, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote: >>> >>>>> On Jun 12, 2011, at 1:25 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Sohail,

...nto exceptions. For other signals, if there is no signal handler then the program is terminated; if the user installed a signal handler then it is run, and as far as I know there is no way for a user installed handler to raise an exception at the original point of execution without going deep into nasal demon territory. So SIGFPE, SIGILL, SIGSEGV and SIGBUS are the only ones that need to be thought about. I'm going to ignore the possibility that the user uses "kill" or somesuch to hit an Ada program with one of these signals. I think that falls out of the scope of the language stan...

So... Are 40 and 41 the only legal behaviors or are there more? Robby On Tuesday, April 19, 2011, Ahmed Charles <ahmedcharles at gmail.com> wrote: > This code is undefined, meaning that all bets are off, don't do it. > I.e. It reads the value of I between two sequence points and uses it > for something other than determining the value written. From: Csaba > Raduly >

...ng to provide the die-horribly fallback behavior that it > currently (quite reasonably) provides in all other contexts? > That is just a bug and has nothing to do with LTO or compatibility. We should never hit llvm_unreachable due to a bad input. In release builds llvm_unreachable turns into nasal demons. > > > And that's just one example > Please provide another. The above example is invalid w.r.t. LTO or compatibility so it is hard to see your point from it. > of a place that would have to be re-engineered this way, to provide the > necessary degree of future-pro...

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 07:50:22PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > Previously, we were squashing EOVERFLOW into EINVAL; continue to do so > at points in the protocol where the client may not be expecting > EOVERFLOW. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> > --- > server/protocol.c | 16 ++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >