search for: solidified

On 04/25/2014 02:21 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >> In short, I agree with your observations that these intrinsics are not an >> obvious slam-dunk compared to making the explicit control flow, but I think >> that the intrinsics do give enough flexibility on the LLVM side that it >> would be great if front-ends used them rather than rolling the control flow >>

FWIW, like David Chisnall, we (Azul) have a problem with rewriting history. Our LLVM fork has O(100) changes diverging from upstream (though our branching structure is simple), and keeping all of that history is important. What do people think of having one (or a set of) merge commit(s) merging in the non-llvm projects that will be part of the new monorepo? That's the only technique I can

I''ve decided that I want to use more automated tests because I''ve been intrigued by the idea of BDD. I am new to using tests, so I''m curious if there have been any writeup on using rSpec. This is one of the only ones I''ve found: http://blog.teksol.info/articles/2005/11/17/building-a-plugin-on-rspec It seems that the benefit of BDD is that it makes it

Monolithic is trying to solve the wrong problem - it's that simple. Any discussion or attempt to coddle those who think it's necessary is a waste of time. #dictator As part of any potential migration, everyone involved must start to accept certain changes, (large or small) to the workflow. The big challenge here isn't technical, it's mindset. It's convincing any group of

...apsulate IP then it won't work with tinc.. Basically I want to have an easy to manage network framework which will work and allow me to add/remove connections as traffic demands change etc.. I know that this wasn't the clearest question and/or explanation but my thinking hasn't really solidified on the issue yet. Feel free to grill me for more information about the setup, however this email is long enough as it is for now. Cheers Tomas Doran System administrator and systems developer. Northern Principle Ltd (0161 848 0440) -- The views & opinions expressed in this email may not be t...

...) const { if (hasLazyArguments()) BuildLazyArguments(); } void BuildLazyArguments() const; I've worked around this by calling Function::getArgumentList() outside the threaded code to harden it before the threaded copies. Are there other lazy data structures that need to be solidified before threading? Should I be playing it safe and put a thread lock around the entire copy procedure? In case you are interested, here is the algorithm I'm using to copy a Module to a same (or different) LLVMContext: if (&context == &other.myContext) {...

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Sorry, just getting caught up on an old thread. I haven't been involved in discussions of this. > > On Jul 17, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: >> First, let me try to clarify my proposal, in case there was any confusion about that. LLVMContext already has a

All, I have written a trusted execution module and would appreciate if anyone could help in testing. This module provides a functionality similar to NetBSD's verified exec mechanism. Once the design details of this security policy has been solidified, I will be releasing a white paper which describes the technical implementation in greater detail. The mac_chkexec policy logic can be found here: http://people.freebsd.org/~csjp/mac/trustedexec.png Q: What is mac_chkexec? A: It's a mandatory access control policy which ensures that if the...

> On Jul 21, 2016, at 2:29 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Jul 21, 2016, at 11:03 AM, Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> FWIW, like David Chisnall, we (Azul) have a problem with rewriting >> history. >> Our LLVM fork has O(100) changes diverging from upstream >> (though our

...second round of testing, we will need a third round. But we try > to avoid that as much as possible. > > The last step is to package up the binaries so that they can be uploaded > to the llvm.org website. > > And that's it! > > As May approaches, I'll send out a more solidified schedule for the > release. I'll also begin warning people of the impending > doom^H^H^H^Hbranching. > > Cheers!! > -bw > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listi...

Hello everyone, Do you feel it? The little shiver down your spine when you think of "namespacing" in rails? To some thats a common feeling, to people like myself who enforce absolute organization have already thought about the need for namespaces in rails. Now I do understand this is an ongoing effort... to some degree. Controllers and routes, from my experiences work well, that being,

I am breaking ground on a new project and one of the issues I expect to encouter is the ability of users to define their own columns. For example, one of the features of this application will be the ability to store information about people''s skills and then search for and schedule them based on this information. Since every organization''s needs are different, it would be ideal

On April 25, 2014 at 1:44:37 PM, Reid Kleckner (rnk at google.com) wrote: Thanks for the writeup! It's very helpful. On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: On April 25, 2014 at 10:48:18 AM, Reid Kleckner (rnk at google.com) wrote: On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: The sdiv operation in LLVM IR only

...target's LowerCall method. Right now, the interface is a bit rough around the edges, but I wanted to get feedback from the community on what you want in this interface before spending too much time on it. This patch currently only addresses the X86 and NVPTX back-ends. Once the interface is solidified, I will update the rest of the in-tree targets. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Gohman [mailto:gohman at apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:28 PM > To: Evan Cheng > Cc: Justin Holewinski; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; Commit Messages and Patches > for LLVM; Vinod Gr...

Hi, Whats' the best motherboard you ever ran CentOS on? --------- Don't read this unless you have lots o' spare time, and please, no flamers or kook-jobs with wierd attitudes, this is just plain old hardware as it relates to centos talk -no politic or mean folks. Background (why I ask about centos-friendly hardware): As I order alot of servers, I have alot of vendors telling me

Friends- I wanted to let people know that there is a new experimental release of this plugin. I would love feedback on syntax and features. There is now a full test suite with fixtures that covers all the available syntax. Look at the test suite for more syntax possibilities. There have been many additions since my last release. Fabien Atelier has been working on this with me and has

...target's LowerCall method. Right now, the interface is a bit rough around the edges, but I wanted to get feedback from the community on what you want in this interface before spending too much time on it. This patch currently only addresses the X86 and NVPTX back-ends. Once the interface is solidified, I will update the rest of the in-tree targets. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dan Gohman [mailto:gohman at apple.com] >> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:28 PM >> To: Evan Cheng >> Cc: Justin Holewinski; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; Commit Messages and Patche...

I''m trying to scale up Puppet and am wondering if I can use Puppet in an odd way. I''m looking to use Puppet as an authoritative source for all the configuration done to a cluster. That includes fstab''s, modprobe.conf, etc. This reduces duplication. I''m using SystemImager on a cluster and would like to run Puppet during the install, so when the node reboots, it

On Jul 21, 2013, at 8:00 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> Sorry, just getting caught up on an old thread. I haven't been involved in discussions of this. >> >> On Jul 17, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: >>> First,

...something major comes up during the second round of testing, we will need a third round. But we try to avoid that as much as possible. The last step is to package up the binaries so that they can be uploaded to the llvm.org website. And that's it! As May approaches, I'll send out a more solidified schedule for the release. I'll also begin warning people of the impending doom^H^H^H^Hbranching. Cheers!! -bw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130401/4a813916/attachment.html>