search for: restriction

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 9381 matches for "restriction".

2018 Feb 14
1
[vhost:vhost 22/23] drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c:130:36: sparse: incorrect type in initializer (different base types)
tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git vhost head: 3d22d7c1190db3209b644b8a13a75a9802b4587f commit: b3a8771f409b74c42deee28aee3092fc5d2c8dab [22/23] fw_cfg: write vmcoreinfo details reproduce: # apt-get install sparse git checkout b3a8771f409b74c42deee28aee3092fc5d2c8dab make ARCH=x86_64 allmodconfig
2007 Aug 26
1
[LLVMdev] c const
Hi Daniel, On Aug 24, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On 8/22/07, Christopher Lamb <christopher.lamb at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> 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
2007 Aug 24
0
[LLVMdev] c const
On 8/22/07, Christopher Lamb <christopher.lamb at gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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
2007 Aug 22
2
[LLVMdev] c const
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 >>
2020 Feb 14
2
Given one restrict pointer based on another, should they never alias?
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
2020 Feb 20
2
Given one restrict pointer based on another, should they never alias?
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
2018 Aug 17
2
alias.scope and local restricted C pointers
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 >>   >>
2007 Mar 26
6
[LLVMdev] C99 restrict
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
2012 Dec 03
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Scoped no-alias metadata
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "Clang Developers" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Developers Mailing > List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012
2012 Dec 03
3
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Scoped no-alias metadata
----- 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
2012 Dec 03
0
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Scoped no-alias metadata
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- 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>,
2012 Dec 03
0
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Scoped no-alias metadata
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "Clang Developers" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM
2020 May 05
1
[Bug 3159] New: authorized_keys: gap in port forwarding restrictions
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3159 Bug ID: 3159 Summary: authorized_keys: gap in port forwarding restrictions Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 8.0p1 Hardware: Other OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: sshd Assignee: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org Reporter: spmfox at fox...
2012 Dec 03
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Scoped no-alias metadata
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "Clang Developers" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Developers Mailing > List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012
2018 Aug 16
3
alias.scope and local restricted C pointers
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
2007 Mar 26
3
[LLVMdev] C99 restrict
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
2019 May 02
2
llvm is illegally vectorizing with a recurrence on skylake
Hi -- I have found a bug in an HPC code where llvm is vectorizing a loop on Skylake that has an obvious recurrence. I derived a small test case based on the original benchmark below: /*****************************************************************/ static void __attribute__ ((always_inline)) one( const int *restrict in, const int *const end, const unsigned shift, int *const
2005 Dec 18
1
Samba 3: "restrict anonymous = 2" breaks domain joining
Hello, Despite not having received any input on my last problem, I managed to work it out and now I've finally got a working Linux PDC with ldapsam and non-root domain admin. As it turned out, the problems were caused by a combination of Samba settings, too tight security on Windows boxes and, in case of XP x64, a need for some patches against Samba source code; here I would like to ask a
2019 Nov 12
2
Full restrict support - status update
...am waiting for a proposal from them ;) > > I would like to see the restrict support be merged but, as Jeroen > mentions above, I feel there are two design choices we have to > overthink. Here are short descriptions to get some feedback from the > community: > > (A) Naming and restriction > > The name "sidechannel" is unfortunate, it has various negative > connotations, e.g., the release notes that read: > "LLVM 10.0 now has sidechannel support for your restrict pointer" > will raise a lot of follow up questions. > > What I think we actual...
2007 Mar 26
0
[LLVMdev] C99 restrict
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 an llvm intrinsic that encodes the known alias free range > >> for