search for: remangl

Great job! I'm considering converting all my mp3 files to Vorbis format. Only examples/encoder_example is a bit too simplistic (of course, being an example), and the cmdline tools aren't ready. I encode my mp3 files at 96 kbit/s, because that's enough for me. Will Vorbis do well at this rate? Any quick hacks I can make to examples/encoder_example.c? Perhaps Vorbis is of interest

...e default mangling method in samba3 from hash2 to hash. hash2 behaves more like Windows mangling. > mangling method = hash Either take this line out or change it to hash2. You may need to take care that existing filenames whose names have already been mangled with the hash method get remangled with hash2 method. ~ Daniel ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates. It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). No addressee shou...

...there be for a debugger integration tool? There was mention in [0] of tests for Microsoft specific extensions (I assume extended debugging facilities), knowing the scope of extra information involved would help us design around it. Note that the current Dexter codebase is going to be significantly remangled, we're trying to decouple the expected-behaviour language from the debugger-abstractions summary of how the program behaved. [0] https://reviews.llvm.org/D54187#1290282 [1] https://github.com/SNSystems/dexter [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRT_GmpGjXE [3] https://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-04...

...primary motivation? > A similar concern to PR20455 from our own debugger. It much helps > matching up the forward declaration and definition to have the parameters > properly specified. > > Why is matching by name insufficient/not correct? > > > | maybe it's possible to remangle the template using just the string name > I have no idea what you're talking about here. > > Looking at PR20455 you linked, LLDB isn't finding the right function > because of mangling: > call to a function 'basic_string<char, char_traits<char> > >::operato...

...primary motivation? > A similar concern to PR20455 from our own debugger. It much helps > matching up the forward declaration and definition to have the parameters > properly specified. > > Why is matching by name insufficient/not correct? > > > | maybe it's possible to remangle the template using just the string name > I have no idea what you're talking about here. > > Looking at PR20455 you linked, LLDB isn't finding the right function > because of mangling: > call to a function 'basic_string<char, char_traits<char> > >::operato...

...primary motivation? > A similar concern to PR20455 from our own debugger. It much helps > matching up the forward declaration and definition to have the parameters > properly specified. > > Why is matching by name insufficient/not correct? > > > | maybe it's possible to remangle the template using just the string name > I have no idea what you're talking about here. > > Looking at PR20455 you linked, LLDB isn't finding the right function > because of mangling: > call to a function 'basic_string<char, char_traits<char> > >::operato...

...primary motivation? > A similar concern to PR20455 from our own debugger. It much helps > matching up the forward declaration and definition to have the parameters > properly specified. > > Why is matching by name insufficient/not correct? > > > | maybe it's possible to remangle the template using just the string name > I have no idea what you're talking about here. > > Looking at PR20455 you linked, LLDB isn't finding the right function > because of mangling: > call to a function 'basic_string<char, char_traits<char> > >::operato...