search for: sign

Hi, I'm using samba-4.7.x I have some confusions over "map to guest=" options with setting SMB Signing 1. Set "*Server signing =auto*", "*map to guest=bad uid*" and set "client signing in windows 2k12 server group policy" to "Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (Always)” = *Disable*" SMB_Server is joined to Windows 2k12 Active Directory...

It won't move the sign bit, so negative values won't fit, unless you have a 3 bit signed type ;) Note that if you assign negative values to and then read from a signed bit-field, you would do sign extension. So 3-bit signed types do exist in C++. It begs the question why PointerIntPair supports signed int types if...

Rather than “fixing” it, it might be better to support a separate method for signed extension. My reasoning is as follows: int x = 7; llvm::PointerIntPair<double*, 3, int> pip; pip.setInt(x); There could be code out there that expects pip.getInt() to return 7 and not -1. So if you really want to set a negative and return a negative value, a separate method setSignedInt...

I'd argue that bitfield sign extensions are surprising and are usually a source of bugs. It would be much more explicit and less error prone for the user to write the sign extension if they want it. By extension, it seems good that PointerIntPair doesn't do sign extension when the type happens to be signed. On Wed, Apr 4...

On 4 Apr 2018, at 11:01, Florian Hahn via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 04/04/2018 05:34, Riyaz Puthiyapurayil via llvm-dev wrote: >> llvm::PointerIntPair<double*, 3, signed> P; >> P.setInt(-4); >> Ideally, the value range for a 3-bit signed integer should be [-4,3]. But the above call to setInt will fail. Essentially, the signed int field in PointerIntPair is behaving the same as an 3-bit unsigned field which has the legal value range of [0,7]. Is thi...

I recently noticed a difference between the way GCC and LLVM treat sign extension for parameters and return values on x86-64. I could not find a clear answer in the x86-64 ABI [1] concerning whether parameters should be sign extended by the caller or callee and similarly whether return values should be sign extended by the caller or callee. Consider a simple 'sig...

I'd suggest someone try fixing this & see if it breaks anything that can't reasonably be fixed (before we go assuming this is by design/shouldn't be fixed just because it's the way it is today). On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:16 AM Riyaz Puthiyapurayil via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > It won't move the sign bit, so negative values won't fit, unless you have > a 3 bit signed type ;) > &g...

Hi, I'm using samba-4.7.x I have some confusions over "map to guest=" options with setting SMB Signing 1. Set "*Server signing =auto*", "*map to guest=bad uid*" and set "client signing in windows 2k12 server group policy" to "Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (Always)” = *Disable*" SMB_Server is joined to Windows 2k12 Active Directory...

...ting to see if anything breaks - and if nothing does, moving to the behavior rather than supporting both. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:27 AM Riyaz Puthiyapurayil < Riyaz.Puthiyapurayil at synopsys.com> wrote: > Rather than “fixing” it, it might be better to support a separate method > for signed extension. My reasoning is as follows: > > > > int x = 7; > > llvm::PointerIntPair<double*, 3, int> pip; > > pip.setInt(x); > > > > There could be code out there that expects pip.getInt() to return 7 and > not -1. > > > > So if you really w...

The sign extension is correct. Otherwise setInt(-1) won’t work. If you don’t want sign extension, then use ‘unsigned’ and not ‘int’ in the template arguments. > On Apr 4, 2018, at 14:34, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I'd argue that bitfield sign exte...

...experience with Matlab, so changing the mat file or saving it in a different format is not an option for me. Kind regards, Claude > foo <- readMat("riversurveyor.mat", verbose=TRUE) Trying to read MAT v5 file stream... List of 7 $ type : chr "miMATRIX" $ signed : logi NA $ sizeOf : int 0 $ what : num 0 $ nbrOfBytes: int 2848 $ padding : num 0 $ compressed: logi FALSE List of 7 $ type : chr "miMATRIX" $ signed : logi NA $ sizeOf : int 0 $ what : num 0...

Hi, I am trying to do some calculations turning DMS data to decimal degrees using the formula (D+(M/60)+(S/3600)), some of the D's involve -ve numbers, the easiest way to do the calculation is to use absolute numbers then use the 'sign' function in R to change the answer back to the correct -ve or +ve, for example, if; D<--69 M<-8 S<-10 then decimal<-D+(M/60)+(S/3600) -69+(8/60)+(10/3600) = this would equal -68.86389 (which is wrong, it should be -69.13611, so i used the following function) decimal<-(ab...

On 04/04/2018 11:15, David Chisnall wrote: > On 4 Apr 2018, at 11:01, Florian Hahn via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 04/04/2018 05:34, Riyaz Puthiyapurayil via llvm-dev wrote: >>> llvm::PointerIntPair<double*, 3, signed> P; >>> P.setInt(-4); >>> Ideally, the value range for a 3-bit signed integer should be [-4,3]. But the above call to setInt will fail. Essentially, the signed int field in PointerIntPair is behaving the same as an 3-bit unsigned field which has the legal value range of [0,7]...

how does llvm decide when to use unsigned instructions then? such as unsigned adds and loads? I'm trying to describe some multiply shift ops and getting a bit stuck differentiating between signed and unsigned. sam Eli Friedman-2 wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: &g...

I do agree that sign-extension is the right thing to do. Unlike bit-fields, llvm::PointerIntPair has asserts checking that the int value is within range. So if you assign an out of range value, it should fail with an assertion: llvm::PointerIntPair<SomeType*, 3, int> pip; pip.setInt(7); // can be made to fail as...

On 02/08/2020 16:26, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On the side note: it is Microsoft that signs one of Linux packages now. We seem to have made one more step away from ?our? computers being _our computers_. Am I wrong? > > Valeri > Microsoft are the Certificate Authority for SecureBoot and most SB-enabled hardware (most x86 hardware) comes with a copy of the Microsoft key prein...

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 05:52:13 -0600 (CST) shivappa Sangapur via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm using samba-4.7.x > I have some confusions over "map to guest=" options with setting SMB > Signing 1. Set "*Server signing =auto*", "*map to guest=bad uid*" and > set "client signing in windows 2k12 server group policy" to > "Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (Always)” = > *Disable*" SMB_Server is joined to Windows 2k12 Ac...

Hello Samba-Specialists, which smb.conf-options do I have to set to get access to a Samba-Share from a Windows7-Machine, if the Windows7-Machine is very restrictive configured regarding 'smb-signing'? Windows7-Configuration: Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (if server agrees): Enabled Microsoft network client: Digitally sign communications (always): Enabled Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (if client agrees): Enabled Microsoft network serve...

...tck=0.01 and mgp=c(1,-1.5,0) for internal tick marks." I thought that's nice, because I wanted to have tick marks and tick labels inside and the axis title outside. But: > plot(z, las=1, tck=0.01, mgp=c(1,-1.5,0)) Warnmeldungen: 1: In plot.window(...) : `mgp[1:3]' are of differing sign 2: In plot.xy(xy, type, ...) : `mgp[1:3]' are of differing sign 3: In axis(side = side, at = at, labels = labels, ...) : `mgp[1:3]' are of differing sign 4: In axis(side = side, at = at, labels = labels, ...) : `mgp[1:3]' are of differing sign 5: In box(...) : `mgp[1:3]' are of...

I'm implementing an integer bounds analysis (i.e., for each variable compute its lower and upper bound) as a LLVM pass. My objective is to identify potential overflows in both signed and unsigned C integers. To do that I need to know the sign of each integer. However, we know that LLVM IR does not keep sign information explicitly. My understanding is that the only instructions with explicit sign information is ICmp (e.g., icmp ugt ....) for the case of integers. Thus, sign...