search for: restricted

...etails reproduce: # apt-get install sparse git checkout b3a8771f409b74c42deee28aee3092fc5d2c8dab make ARCH=x86_64 allmodconfig make C=1 CF=-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__ sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c:108:28: sparse: cast to restricted __be32 drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c:108:28: sparse: cast to restricted __be32 drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c:108:28: sparse: cast to restricted __be32 drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c:108:28: sparse: cast to restricted __be32 drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c:108:28: sparse: cast to restri...

...gt;> pointer to the >> type. Only pointers may be "based on" other pointers from my >> reading of the >> spec. > > Christopher, just to point something out. > > Earlier you said that restrict says something about the relationship > of a pointer to non-restricted pointers. This is not true except for > one small case. > Restricted pointers in general only tell you things about a > relationship to other restricted pointers. I'm not sure which previous statement was unclear, but I can believe I was a bit loose with the details on this point....

...e to a value of the pointed-to type rather than a pointer to the > type. Only pointers may be "based on" other pointers from my reading of the > spec. Christopher, just to point something out. Earlier you said that restrict says something about the relationship of a pointer to non-restricted pointers. This is not true except for one small case. Restricted pointers in general only tell you things about a relationship to other restricted pointers. IE the following is perfectly legal: int foo(int *a, restrict int *b) { int *c = a; a = b; *a = 90; a = c; *a = 90; } The following is n...

On Aug 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Christopher, > >> If A and B are function arguments then there is no "based on" >> relationship between pointer expressions A+0 and B+0. This is because >> changing one of the pointers, A for example, to point to a copy of >> the object it points to would change the value of the pointer >>

We recently found an issue when using the full restrict implementation developed by Jeroen; it surfaces when compiling an obscure combination of std::valarray and std::indirect_array but I don't want to bore you with all the details. What it boils down to is this basic question about restrict: Given one restrict pointer based on another, should they never alias? As far as I understand the

Thanks, Jeroen, that really helps. A follow-up question, if you don't mind. What if we have code somewhat similar to your example in assign3() but it's in C++ and the pointer derived from x is stored in a class member field: class S { public: S(int *d): data(d) {} int *getData() { return data; } private: int *__restrict__ data; }; void assign4(int *pA, long N) { int

On 08/16/2018 07:52 PM, Bekket McClane via llvm-dev wrote: > > >> On Aug 16, 2018, at 4:41 PM, Troy Johnson via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Concerning slide 16 >> of https://llvm.org/devmtg/2017-02-04/Restrict-Qualified-Pointers-in-LLVM.pdf >>   >> Specifically “Currently, LLVM

On Mar 26, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 02:14:56AM -0500, Christopher Lamb wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 25, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Christopher Lamb wrote: >>>> What about an approach not unlike how debugging information is >>>> handled? That >>>> is have

...le 3): > " > > The function parameter declarations > > void h(int n, int * restrict p, int * restrict q, int * restrict r) > { > int i; > for (i = 0; i < n; i++) > p[i] = q[i] + r[i]; > } > illustrate how an unmodified object can be aliased through two > restricted pointers. In particular, if a and b > are disjoint arrays, a call of the form h(100, a, b, b) has defined > behavior, because array b is not > modified within function h. > " > > If you claim q and r (which may or may not share a GEP) noalias each > other, that would be wro...

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:41:42 -0300 Flávio Silveira via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > Ok, I understand now, one question though: if realm is > AD.TECNOPON.COM.BR, does domain need to be AD? No, you can use anything you like, provided it is one word, 15 characters or less, without punctuation. > If I understand > correctly, realm is "full domain with

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Clang Developers" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Dan Gohman" > <dan433584 at gmail.com> > Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012

...ou attach noalias to GEP's. >From C99 (6.7.3.1, example 3): " The function parameter declarations void h(int n, int * restrict p, int * restrict q, int * restrict r) { int i; for (i = 0; i < n; i++) p[i] = q[i] + r[i]; } illustrate how an unmodified object can be aliased through two restricted pointers. In particular, if a and b are disjoint arrays, a call of the form h(100, a, b, b) has defined behavior, because array b is not modified within function h. " If you claim q and r (which may or may not share a GEP) noalias each other, that would be wrong. That's easy to handle, sinc...

On my member server, running 'ntpq -p' yields: ntpq -p localhost: timed out, nothing received ***Request timed out The ntp.conf file is trying to use the DC's hostnames addresses: user at DC01:~# cat /etc/ntp.conf # /etc/ntp.conf, configuration for ntpd; see ntp.conf(5) for help driftfile /var/lib/ntp/ntp.drift # Enable this if you want statistics to be logged. #statsdir

...'Port forwarding only account.'",port-forwarding,permitlisten="localhost:5000") Now we've enabled port forwarding, and it looks like we've locked it down to one remote port. This will work, however *local port forwarding is wide open* - in fact, this will even allow unrestricted dynamic port forwarding as well. === (restrict,command="echo 'Port forwarding only account.'",port-forwarding,permitlisten="localhost:5000",permitopen:"localhost:22") This is the only way I found to restrict local AND remote forwarding, when you only really wan...

...unction parameter declarations >> >> void h(int n, int * restrict p, int * restrict q, int * restrict r) >> { >> int i; >> for (i = 0; i < n; i++) >> p[i] = q[i] + r[i]; >> } >> illustrate how an unmodified object can be aliased through two >> restricted pointers. In particular, if a and b >> are disjoint arrays, a call of the form h(100, a, b, b) has defined >> behavior, because array b is not >> modified within function h. >> " >> >> If you claim q and r (which may or may not share a GEP) noalias each >&g...

...void h(int n, int * restrict p, int * restrict q, int * restrict > >> r) > >> { > >> int i; > >> for (i = 0; i < n; i++) > >> p[i] = q[i] + r[i]; > >> } > >> illustrate how an unmodified object can be aliased through two > >> restricted pointers. In particular, if a and b > >> are disjoint arrays, a call of the form h(100, a, b, b) has defined > >> behavior, because array b is not > >> modified within function h. > >> " > >> > >> If you claim q and r (which may or may not sh...

...and do stuff. I want to block access to all public drives so this is what I've done: Consider the SAMBA server in Office A and I want to create a guest account so that people from Office B and C can access. There is a public drive that everyone in Office A can edit, and a drive called "Restricted" that one person in Office A can edit, but everyone else in Office A can access but not edit. Created a group called "everyone" and added everyone in Office A to that group Created a group called "Restricted" and added the person who's allowed to edit this drive to tha...

Concerning slide 16 of https://llvm.org/devmtg/2017-02-04/Restrict-Qualified-Pointers-in-LLVM.pdf Specifically "Currently, LLVM only supports restrict on function arguments, although we have a way to preserve that information if the function is inlined." Is that statement still accurate? It would seem that https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#noalias-and-alias-scope-metadata should be

On Mar 25, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Christopher Lamb wrote: >>> So far, there hasn't been a discussion. IMO, the most important >>> form is >>> for formal arguments. That could easily be added thorough the >>> use of an >>> attribute on the parameter. >> >> I assume the idea here is to

It appears that none of our windows clients are syncing their time with the samba DC.??? From what I can tell they are not able to get a response from the DC.? For example, where the DC is named athena: >w32tm /monitor /computers:athena athena[10.10.1.10:123] ? ICMP: 0ms delay ? NTP: error ERROR_TIMEOUT - no response from server in 1000ms From a Linux machine there is