search for: solidifies

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 >>

...Christopher, > > AFAICT, you haven't explained *why* it is the wrong problem. Mind > elaborating on that? > > > Jon > > p.s: edicts, appeals to authority, and ad hominems are not useful for > discussion. Doing that, and following up with "#dictator" further solidifies > that you know your own argument is b-s.... please stop. > > -- > Jon Roelofs > jonathan at codesourcery.com > CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://li...

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

Hiya everyone. I am currently evaluating tinc for use by my company's vpn needs and I would like some help/information about configuration of tinc and if it will do what I would like it to do. Hopefully some kind soul will help me with what I am trying to achieve. I am sorry if this is an inappropriate forum for this question but I am looking for people with some ideas on networking generally

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I finally got around to testing this approach (round tripping through bitcode in memory) and it works beautifully - and isn't that much slower than cloning. I have noticed however that the copy process isn't thread-safe. The problem is that in Function, there is lazy initialization code for arguments: void CheckLazyArguments() const { if

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

...why* it is the wrong problem. Mind >>> elaborating on that? >>> >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> p.s: edicts, appeals to authority, and ad hominems are not useful for >>> discussion. Doing that, and following up with "#dictator" further solidifies >>> that you know your own argument is b-s.... please stop. >>> >>> -- >>> Jon Roelofs >>> jonathan at codesourcery.com >>> CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> L...

It is very exciting to see experimental Windows support listed for 3.3. Is there documentation somewhere that tracks what works and what doesn't in this configuration, particularly for C++?. Otherwise it is difficult for those not actively involved in developing Windows support to know what to expect when experimenting. Thanks, Andrew On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Bill Wendling

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

In response to this discussion, I've prepared the attached patch as an initial prototype for the LowerCall/LowerCallTo change. All of the information currently needed by the back-ends, and the extra information needed by the NVPTX back-end, is now wrapped in a CallLoweringInfo struct. The various SelectionDAG classes have been modified so any calls to TargetLowering::LowerCallTo use this

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

Thanks. This is going in the right direction IMHO. Obviously, please make sure you add comments to the data structure and convert all the targets first. Also, please don't forget to send an email to llvmdev to warn owners of all the out-of-tree targets about the ABI change. Evan On May 15, 2012, at 6:56 AM, Justin Holewinski <jholewinski at nvidia.com> wrote: > In response to this

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,

Happy April! [Contrary to the day, this is not an April Fool's joke. ;-)] It has been several months since the release of Clang 3.2. Now is the time to start thinking about the next release! The (very) tentative schedule is testing in May and a release in June. What This Means For You Now is the time to start thinking about which features you are currently working on and getting them