search for: substructur

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9670 Summary: missing substructure within partial-dir causes files to be lost or overwritten Product: rsync Version: 3.0.9 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P5 Component: core AssignedTo: wa...

Hi Spencer, I have seen your name on the web site, and perhaps you can help me with my R problem. I'm trying to use KernSur to put in evidence a substructure in a bidimensional plot. My problem is that, in order to get the density in the low density areas (in which the substructure is located) I should use different bandwidths. How I can do that? Also, I think that the best choice for my case is to use the function "akerdmul" which perform t...

...4,11 @@ struct paravirt_ops paravirt_ops = { .dup_mmap = paravirt_nop, .exit_mmap = paravirt_nop, .activate_mm = paravirt_nop, + + .lazy_mode = { + .enter = paravirt_nop, + .leave = paravirt_nop, + }, }, }; @@ -417,7 +466,6 @@ static void __init __used pv_aliases(voi substructure(pv_info); substructure(pv_init_ops); - substructure(pv_misc_ops); substructure(pv_time_ops); substructure(pv_cpu_ops); substructure(pv_irq_ops); =================================================================== --- a/arch/i386/kernel/vmi.c +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/vmi.c @@ -552,24 +552,22...

...4,11 @@ struct paravirt_ops paravirt_ops = { .dup_mmap = paravirt_nop, .exit_mmap = paravirt_nop, .activate_mm = paravirt_nop, + + .lazy_mode = { + .enter = paravirt_nop, + .leave = paravirt_nop, + }, }, }; @@ -417,7 +466,6 @@ static void __init __used pv_aliases(voi substructure(pv_info); substructure(pv_init_ops); - substructure(pv_misc_ops); substructure(pv_time_ops); substructure(pv_cpu_ops); substructure(pv_irq_ops); =================================================================== --- a/arch/i386/kernel/vmi.c +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/vmi.c @@ -552,24 +552,22...

...4,11 @@ struct paravirt_ops paravirt_ops = { .dup_mmap = paravirt_nop, .exit_mmap = paravirt_nop, .activate_mm = paravirt_nop, + + .lazy_mode = { + .enter = paravirt_nop, + .leave = paravirt_nop, + }, }, }; @@ -417,7 +486,6 @@ static void __init __used pv_aliases(voi substructure(pv_info); substructure(pv_init_ops); - substructure(pv_misc_ops); substructure(pv_time_ops); substructure(pv_cpu_ops); substructure(pv_irq_ops); =================================================================== --- a/arch/i386/kernel/vmi.c +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/vmi.c @@ -552,24 +552,19...

...4,11 @@ struct paravirt_ops paravirt_ops = { .dup_mmap = paravirt_nop, .exit_mmap = paravirt_nop, .activate_mm = paravirt_nop, + + .lazy_mode = { + .enter = paravirt_nop, + .leave = paravirt_nop, + }, }, }; @@ -417,7 +486,6 @@ static void __init __used pv_aliases(voi substructure(pv_info); substructure(pv_init_ops); - substructure(pv_misc_ops); substructure(pv_time_ops); substructure(pv_cpu_ops); substructure(pv_irq_ops); =================================================================== --- a/arch/i386/kernel/vmi.c +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/vmi.c @@ -552,24 +552,19...

...lt;-999; a[1] => 999. Similarly, functions cannot modify the contents of their arguments. There is no equivalent to set-car!/rplaca (not even pairlists and expressions). For example, r<-pairlist(1,2); r[[1]]<-r does not create a circular list. And in general there doesn't seem to be substructure sharing at the semantic level (though there may be in the implementation). R does not have multiple value return in the Lisp sense. R assignment creates a new local variable on first assignment, dynamically. So static analysis is not enough to determine variable reference (R is not referentially...

Many of our pointers point into a structure where they could be considered as having the same base address. We use tbaa to indicate which ones could or could not alias because they are pointing into different substructures. This is exactly the sort of requirement that invoked the need for the restrict modifier in g++, c++0x etc. If I understand you correctly that cannot be expressed in llvm ir because it would be overridden by basicaa being conservative, overriding the explicit metadata. Is that true? It does mak...

...e_mm = paravirt_nop, + }, }; -EXPORT_SYMBOL(paravirt_ops); +static void __init __used pv_aliases(void) +{ + /* + * These asm statements need to be wrapped in a function just + * so we can pass args to them; they are completely constant, + * and this function is never executed. + */ +#define substructure(inner) \ + asm volatile(".data; .globl " #inner "; " \ + #inner " = paravirt_ops+%c0; .previous" \ + : : "i" (offsetof(struct paravirt_ops, inner))) + + substructure(pv_info); + substructure(pv_init_ops); + substructure(pv_misc_ops); + su...

...e_mm = paravirt_nop, + }, }; -EXPORT_SYMBOL(paravirt_ops); +static void __init __used pv_aliases(void) +{ + /* + * These asm statements need to be wrapped in a function just + * so we can pass args to them; they are completely constant, + * and this function is never executed. + */ +#define substructure(inner) \ + asm volatile(".data; .globl " #inner "; " \ + #inner " = paravirt_ops+%c0; .previous" \ + : : "i" (offsetof(struct paravirt_ops, inner))) + + substructure(pv_info); + substructure(pv_init_ops); + substructure(pv_misc_ops); + su...

...3, "C::b2", metadata !3, "C::p", metadata !2} > where !3 is the struct node for "B", !2 is pointer type. > > Given a field access > struct B *bp = ...; > bp->a.x = 5; > we annotate it as B::a.x. In the case of multiple structures containing substructures, how are you differentiating? IE given struct A { struct B b; } struct C { struct B b; } How do you know the above struct B *bp =...; is B::b from C and not B::b from A? (I agree you can know in the case of direct aggregates, but I argue you have no way to know in the case of pointer argument...

..., 2012 at 10:46 AM, Maurice Marks <maurice.marks at gmail.com>wrote: > Many of our pointers point into a structure where they could be considered > as having the same base address. We use tbaa to indicate which ones could > or could not alias because they are pointing into different substructures. > This is exactly the sort of requirement that invoked the need for the > restrict modifier in g++, c++0x etc. If I understand you correctly that > cannot be expressed in llvm ir because it would be overridden by basicaa > being conservative, overriding the explicit metadata. Is that...

...e_mm = paravirt_nop, + }, }; -EXPORT_SYMBOL(paravirt_ops); +static void __init __used pv_aliases(void) +{ + /* + * These asm statements need to be wrapped in a function just + * so we can pass args to them; they are completely constant, + * and this function is never executed. + */ +#define substructure(inner) \ + asm volatile(".data; .globl " #inner "; " \ + #inner " = paravirt_ops+%c0; .previous" \ + : : "i" (offsetof(struct paravirt_ops, inner))) + + substructure(pv_info); + substructure(pv_init_ops); + substructure(pv_misc_ops); + su...

...e_mm = paravirt_nop, + }, }; -EXPORT_SYMBOL(paravirt_ops); +static void __init __used pv_aliases(void) +{ + /* + * These asm statements need to be wrapped in a function just + * so we can pass args to them; they are completely constant, + * and this function is never executed. + */ +#define substructure(inner) \ + asm volatile(".data; .globl " #inner "; " \ + #inner " = paravirt_ops+%c0; .previous" \ + : : "i" (offsetof(struct paravirt_ops, inner))) + + substructure(pv_info); + substructure(pv_init_ops); + substructure(pv_misc_ops); + su...

....activate_mm = paravirt_nop, + }, }; -EXPORT_SYMBOL(paravirt_ops); +static void __init __used pv_aliases(void) +{ + /* These asm statements need to be wrapped in a function just + * so we can pass args to them; they are completely constant, + * and this function is never executed. */ +#define substructure(inner) \ + asm(".data; .globl %0; %0 = paravirt_ops+%c1; .previous" \ + : : "m" (inner), \ + "i" (offsetof(struct paravirt_ops, inner))) + + substructure(pv_info); + substructure(pv_init_ops); + substructure(pv_misc_ops); + substructure(pv_time_ops);...

....activate_mm = paravirt_nop, + }, }; -EXPORT_SYMBOL(paravirt_ops); +static void __init __used pv_aliases(void) +{ + /* These asm statements need to be wrapped in a function just + * so we can pass args to them; they are completely constant, + * and this function is never executed. */ +#define substructure(inner) \ + asm(".data; .globl %0; %0 = paravirt_ops+%c1; .previous" \ + : : "m" (inner), \ + "i" (offsetof(struct paravirt_ops, inner))) + + substructure(pv_info); + substructure(pv_init_ops); + substructure(pv_misc_ops); + substructure(pv_time_ops);...

...3, "C::p", metadata !2} >> where !3 is the struct node for "B", !2 is pointer type. >> >> Given a field access >> struct B *bp = ...; >> bp->a.x = 5; >> we annotate it as B::a.x. > > In the case of multiple structures containing substructures, how are > you differentiating? > > IE given > > struct A { > struct B b; > } > struct C { > struct B b; > } > > How do you know the above struct B *bp =...; is B::b from C and not B::b from A? > > (I agree you can know in the case of direct aggregate...

...!3, "C::p", metadata !2} >> where !3 is the struct node for "B", !2 is pointer type. >> >> Given a field access >> struct B *bp = ...; >> bp->a.x = 5; >> we annotate it as B::a.x. > In the case of multiple structures containing substructures, how are > you differentiating? > > IE given > > struct A { > struct B b; > } > struct C { > struct B b; > } > > How do you know the above struct B *bp =...; is B::b from C and not B::b from A? If I understand correct, the proposed graph is DAG, not tree, and i...

Based on discussions with John McCall We currently focus on field accesses of structs, more specifically, on fields that are scalars or structs. Fundamental rules from C11 -------------------------- An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue expression that has one of the following types: [footnote: The intent of this list is to specify those circumstances in which an

...is the struct node for "B", !2 is pointer type. >>>> >>>> Given a field access >>>> struct B *bp = ...; >>>> bp->a.x = 5; >>>> we annotate it as B::a.x. >>> >>> In the case of multiple structures containing substructures, how are >>> you differentiating? >>> >>> IE given >>> >>> struct A { >>> struct B b; >>> } >>> struct C { >>> struct B b; >>> } >>> >>> How do you know the above struct B *bp =...; is B...