search for: parsons

...ou think about my other proposal of the complicated UDL > with macro? > > #define LIT(x) x_string_ref_literal > constexpr StringRef Strings[] = {LIT("a"), LIT("b"), LIT("c")}; Why bother with the UDL? #define LIT(x) StringRef((x), sizeof(x)-1) -- Malcolm Parsons

...en it's an issue (which will be limited to clang, and even then not very often), or choose a different name. Thoughts? On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:53 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > I can. I'll whip something up today > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:18 AM Malcolm Parsons <malcolm.parsons at gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 2 December 2016 at 17:12, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > +1 from me for the StringLiteral proposal from a few messages back. > > Zachary, do you want to commit StringLiteral? > > -- > Malcol...

...LWAYS_INLINE +#if __has_builtin(__builtin_strlen) + /*implicit*/ constexpr StringRef(const char *Str) + : Data(Str), Length(Str ? __builtin_strlen(Str) : 0) {} +#else /*implicit*/ StringRef(const char *Str) : Data(Str), Length(Str ? ::strlen(Str) : 0) {} +#endif -- Malcolm Parsons

I can. I'll whip something up today On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:18 AM Malcolm Parsons <malcolm.parsons at gmail.com> wrote: > On 2 December 2016 at 17:12, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > +1 from me for the StringLiteral proposal from a few messages back. > > Zachary, do you want to commit StringLiteral? > > -- > Malcolm Parsons...

...(if any) we need to in Clang, or scope a using decl to just what's needed, etc. > > Thoughts? > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:53 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> > wrote: > > I can. I'll whip something up today > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:18 AM Malcolm Parsons <malcolm.parsons at gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 2 December 2016 at 17:12, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > +1 from me for the StringLiteral proposal from a few messages back. > > Zachary, do you want to commit StringLiteral? > > -- > Malcol...

...er rename the clang side than llvm :) — Mehdi > > > Thoughts? > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:53 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com <mailto:zturner at google.com>> wrote: > I can. I'll whip something up today > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:18 AM Malcolm Parsons <malcolm.parsons at gmail.com <mailto:malcolm.parsons at gmail.com>> wrote: > On 2 December 2016 at 17:12, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com <mailto:jyknight at google.com>> wrote: > > +1 from me for the StringLiteral proposal from a few messages back. > &g...

...prove it. Cheers Chris -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> chris parsons, director eden development www.edendevelopment.co.uk 0845 0097 094 po box 425, winchester, so23 0wy, uk

char buffer[100]; And it also allows LIT(buffer) to compile, whereas the UDL doesn't. On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:54 AM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 29, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Malcolm Parsons <malcolm.parsons at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On 29 November 2016 at 17:38, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > >> I see, but I looked over your proposed implementation from earlier in > the > >> thread, and if I'm not mistaken I see...

...de StringRef - all StringRefs constructed from a literal can benefit. But there are concerns about MSVC. I prefer StringLiteral over UDL because the type requires code changes, but the values don't. I prefer StringLiteral over explicit StringRef constructor because it's safer. -- Malcolm Parsons

...s, and I would > really rather not pessimize it. > > --paulr > > > > *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *David > Blaikie via llvm-dev > *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2016 8:52 AM > *To:* Mueller-Roemer, Johannes Sebastian; Malcolm Parsons; Hal Finkel; > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > > *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Constructing StringRefs at compile time > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 6:10 AM Mueller-Roemer, Johannes Sebastian via > llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > W...

...332 This is a small change where needed at string literal call sites. C++17 adds a UDL for std::string_view, so it's not an unusual idea. There is resistance to using a UDL as they can introduce a surprising and novel syntax for calling functions. Comments? Other options? Thanks, -- Malcolm Parsons

...tage 2 on Windows (building Clang with MSVC build Clang) you do end up with a compiler with the desired performance characteristics - then that's probably sufficient. > > -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of > Malcolm Parsons via llvm-dev > Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 13:34 > To: Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Constructing StringRefs at compile time > > On 24 November 2016 at 15:04, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: &...

...ere is a desire to be able to create constexpr > StringRefs to avoid static initializers for global tables of/containing > StringRefs.” > > I don’t have more information, but maybe Malcolm can elaborate? I was restating your motivation from https://reviews.llvm.org/D25639. -- Malcolm Parsons

On 2 December 2016 at 17:12, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > +1 from me for the StringLiteral proposal from a few messages back. Zachary, do you want to commit StringLiteral? -- Malcolm Parsons

...ible with > std::string_view which we may eventually move to. In what way is it incompatible? constexpr StringRef(const char* s) : Data(s), Length(llvm_strlen(s)) {} is equivalent to constexpr string_view(const char* s) : Data(s), Length(std::char_traits<char>::length(s)) {} -- Malcolm Parsons

...s, and I would > really rather not pessimize it. > > --paulr > > > > *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *David > Blaikie via llvm-dev > *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2016 8:52 AM > *To:* Mueller-Roemer, Johannes Sebastian; Malcolm Parsons; Hal Finkel; > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > > *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Constructing StringRefs at compile time > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 6:10 AM Mueller-Roemer, Johannes Sebastian via > llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > W...

...clients - not so much. Note also that there technically can be multiple machines with connections and ability to bring the UPS down (or several UPSes) and perhaps configured so for redundancy, so in general case it is neither a 1:1 nor 1:many relationship. Jim On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 05:05 Douglas Parsons <doug at parsonsemail.com> wrote: > There is, > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish%E2%80%93subscribe_pattern > > I said I stayed away from it because of the Cisco link. Others as well as > you are free to persue it. I was just making suggestions. > > > >...

...clients - not so much. Note also that there technically can be multiple machines with connections and ability to bring the UPS down (or several UPSes) and perhaps configured so for redundancy, so in general case it is neither a 1:1 nor 1:many relationship. Jim On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 05:05 Douglas Parsons <doug at parsonsemail.com> wrote: > There is, > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish%E2%80%93subscribe_pattern > > I said I stayed away from it because of the Cisco link. Others as well as > you are free to persue it. I was just making suggestions. > > > >...

...istered their interest in what the > publisher had to say, but were neither required to exist at all, or might > ignore what was being published. > > Larry Baker > US Geological Survey > 650-329-5608 > baker at usgs.gov > > > > On Mar 12 2021, at 7:22:35 PM, Douglas Parsons <doug at parsonsemail.com> > wrote: > > I didn't go there due to its use by Cisco. > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 PM Baker, Lawrence M via Nut-upsuser < > nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote: > >> Jim, >> >> The terminology I recall...

...istered their interest in what the > publisher had to say, but were neither required to exist at all, or might > ignore what was being published. > > Larry Baker > US Geological Survey > 650-329-5608 > baker at usgs.gov > > > > On Mar 12 2021, at 7:22:35 PM, Douglas Parsons <doug at parsonsemail.com> > wrote: > > I didn't go there due to its use by Cisco. > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 PM Baker, Lawrence M via Nut-upsuser < > nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote: > >> Jim, >> >> The terminology I recall...