search for: scarier

...be we can add a Clang flag to add such a namespace for us? >>>> >>> >>> I think this is essentially what Dmitry was talking about w/ past >>> STLport experience. It has lots of limitations: >>> >> >> Patching object files still sounds much scarier and harder to port. >> I'd prefer to find a solution that involves only source files and maybe >> clang. >> Pondering... >> >> >>> - You can't use the normal system standard library >>> >> - You have to build the standard library from so...

...stem dependent >> object file hackery. >> Maybe we can add a Clang flag to add such a namespace for us? >> > > I think this is essentially what Dmitry was talking about w/ past STLport > experience. It has lots of limitations: > Patching object files still sounds much scarier and harder to port. I'd prefer to find a solution that involves only source files and maybe clang. Pondering... > - You can't use the normal system standard library > - You have to build the standard library from source > - You can't wrap certain parts of it (operator new,...

...le hackery. >>> Maybe we can add a Clang flag to add such a namespace for us? >>> >> >> I think this is essentially what Dmitry was talking about w/ past STLport >> experience. It has lots of limitations: >> > > Patching object files still sounds much scarier and harder to port. > I'd prefer to find a solution that involves only source files and maybe > clang. > Pondering... > > >> - You can't use the normal system standard library >> > - You have to build the standard library from source >> - You can't wr...

...o add such a namespace for us? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think this is essentially what Dmitry was talking about w/ past >>>> STLport experience. It has lots of limitations: >>>> >>> >>> Patching object files still sounds much scarier and harder to port. >>> I'd prefer to find a solution that involves only source files and maybe >>> clang. >>> Pondering... >>> >>> >>>> - You can't use the normal system standard library >>>> >>> - You have to bu...

...s? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think this is essentially what Dmitry was talking about w/ past >>>>> STLport experience. It has lots of limitations: >>>>> >>>> >>>> Patching object files still sounds much scarier and harder to port. >>>> I'd prefer to find a solution that involves only source files and maybe >>>> clang. >>>> Pondering... >>>> >>>> >>>>> - You can't use the normal system standard library >>>>> &...

Hi, I'm still Yves. This other fix <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/1061499/> never made it to opus repository. It seems safe and sane enough to be applied to opus master branch. What do you think? -- Warm regards, Yves -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

...cussed this in our weekly call however, and there were voices advocating either option 2 or 3. Input welcome. If going down the option 3 route, the flags could be made more discouraging through requiring an additional `-riscv-enable-experimental-extension` flag or making the flag itself longer and scarier. Thoughts? If there is agreement that this is a sensible approach, we'd work to review and refine the proposed patches starting bit manipulation and vector extension support with a goal of getting them committed once of a sufficient quality. # Credits Thanks for input from Sam Elliott and Luí...

...e they're in Linus' tree, though often with a delay of a few days or weeks. If they go in through drm-misc-next, they're guaranteed not to appear in *any* release before 4.16-final is out. This allows for differentiation between no-brainer stable fixes that can be sent immediately and scarier, but similarly important stable fixes that should soak for a while. I'm not sure which category this series belongs to, though it's true what Maarten says, it's not *that* grave a change. Thanks, Lukas

...gt; >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this is essentially what Dmitry was talking about w/ past >>>>>> STLport experience. It has lots of limitations: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Patching object files still sounds much scarier and harder to port. >>>>> I'd prefer to find a solution that involves only source files and >>>>> maybe clang. >>>>> Pondering... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> - You can't use the normal system standard librar...

...ings > like atomic instructions and cache maintenance instructions which currently > appears to be missing. Would it be to bad to look at si_addr to spot kernel > addresses and handle them specially? We use this for preliminary classification of bugs, on the assumption that bad writes are scarier than bad reads. We don't care about si_addr permissions, what matters is the type of access requested by the faulting instruction, i.e. PC at the time of the fault. Worst case, we could disassemble the instruction to find out if its a read or a write, and on arm64 it is not even that hard. &gt...

...now. That's a reasonable concern. This is the first time I'm looking at foldShuffledBinop(...), so maybe a naive question, but why not do similar shuffle canonicalizations on unary (or ternary) operations? That may be a better fix in the long run. > But glancing at Reassociate.cpp is scarier. It does a lot of stuff like > this: > if (BinaryOperator::isNeg(TheOp) || BinaryOperator::isFNeg(TheOp)) > X = BinaryOperator::getNegArgument(TheOp); > > I think that's going to fail without a (terrible) hack to treat the > proposed fneg as a binop. So that's pr...

...>> >>>>>>> I think this is essentially what Dmitry was talking about w/ past >>>>>>> STLport experience. It has lots of limitations: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Patching object files still sounds much scarier and harder to port. >>>>>> I'd prefer to find a solution that involves only source files and >>>>>> maybe clang. >>>>>> Pondering... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> - You can't use the norma...

...a special prologue that resets ebp/rbp, and then continue with normal emission. Any local variables declared in the __except block are allocated in the parent frame and are accessed via ebp. Any calls create new stack adjustments to new allocate argument memory. > > This approach sounds far scarier to me, personally, and will significantly complicate a part of LLVM that is already poorly understood and hard to hack on. I think adding a pair of intrinsics that can't be inlined will be far less disruptive for the rest of LLVM. This is actually already the status quo for SjLj exceptions, whi...

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:39 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > I have 1 concern about adding an explicit fneg op to IR: > > Currently, fneg qualifies as a binop in IR (since there's no other way to > represent it), and we have IR transforms that are based on matching that > pattern (m_BinOp). With a proper unary fneg instruction, those transforms >

...;>>>>> I think this is essentially what Dmitry was talking about w/ past >>>>>>>> STLport experience. It has lots of limitations: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Patching object files still sounds much scarier and harder to port. >>>>>>> I'd prefer to find a solution that involves only source files and >>>>>>> maybe clang. >>>>>>> Pondering... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - You...

...>> >>>>>>> I think this is essentially what Dmitry was talking about w/ past >>>>>>> STLport experience. It has lots of limitations: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Patching object files still sounds much scarier and harder to port. >>>>>> I'd prefer to find a solution that involves only source files and >>>>>> maybe clang. >>>>>> Pondering... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> - You can't use the norma...

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Can we alter the build system so that when building a run-time library it > modifies all .cpp files like this: > namespace FOO { > <file body> > } > This will give us essentially the same thing, but w/o system dependent > object file hackery. > Maybe we can add a Clang flag

...mpute_silk_rate_for_hybrid() should never give SILK more bits than there are in total. That means HB_gain should be bounded between 0 and 1 and should definitely never be NaN. So either the patch does nothing (in which case we don't need it), or it does something and there's something much scarier going on than NaNs. In the latter case, I think more investigation is required. Cheers, Jean-Marc On 9/12/19 1:00 PM, Yves Gerey wrote: > Hi, I'm still Yves. > > This other fix > <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/1061499/> never > made it to...

...ee, though > often with a delay of a few days or weeks. If they go in through > drm-misc-next, they're guaranteed not to appear in *any* release > before 4.16-final is out. > > This allows for differentiation between no-brainer stable fixes that > can be sent immediately and scarier, but similarly important stable > fixes that should soak for a while. I'm not sure which category > this series belongs to, though it's true what Maarten says, it's > not *that* grave a change. If you're this concerned about them, then pls do _not_ put cc: stable on the p...

I'm looking into adding a cloud to one of my servers. Criteria: security accessible via Windoze, Android Mobile Devices, iPhones, iPads, Macs Preferably something living under one of the better repos, such as epel An active project doing updates and adding features. I don't suppose any of you have ideas for this? ;) -- John Hinton 877-777-1407 ext 502 http://www.ew3d.com Comprehensive