search for: unproved

On 06/12/2015 12:27 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > On Sat, June 13, 2015 1:22 pm, jd1008 wrote: >> >> On 06/12/2015 12:18 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:05:16PM -0600, jd1008 wrote: >>>> Mark, please be aware that noscript has also a whitelist >>>> that is not viewable by the user. >>>> The whitelist tab does NOT

Seems that blastwave is all about pkgutil now. Are there any plans to support this? Best, Adam --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

On Fri, June 12, 2015 2:03 pm, Jonathan Billings wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:38:35PM -0600, jd1008 wrote: >> I was just using that as an example of damaging javascripts. >> The current version of noscript no longer tells the number of >> javascrits that are blocked out of the total (per web site). >> In the older versions, I would dlete all entries in the visible

...peatedly. It's not only bad for parallelism but also for a single-thread case because it increase size of data to be processed. This is I believe the true bottleneck of Unix linkers. Tackling that problem seems to be most important to me, and "ELF as a file format is slow" is still an unproved thing to me. > > 2) I think the ELF camp still thinks that linkers are “dumb”. That they > just collate .o files into executable files. The darwin linker does a lot > of processing/optimizing the content (e.g. Objective-C optimizing, dead > stripping, function/data re-ordering)....

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:38:35PM -0600, jd1008 wrote: > I was just using that as an example of damaging javascripts. > The current version of noscript no longer tells the number of > javascrits that are blocked out of the total (per web site). > In the older versions, I would dlete all entries in the visible > whitelist, and would visit new websites. It would list some > n

Hi everyone, I got a basic puppetmaster setup, which works well for Linux. I''ve setup a basic function: define remotefile($owner = root, $group = root, $mode, $source, $backup = false, $recurse = false) { file { $name: mode => $mode, owner => $owner, group => $group, backup => $backup,

Hi all, I''m looking into a way to centrally manage installed packages on a fairly fine-grained level. We prefer not to blindly install every new update, but when a mechanism in which we can "approve" of a certain version or not. At first I was thinking about something external to puppet, but then I remembered that it''s possible in puppet to tell which version needs to

As everyone probably realizes, I''m getting swamped with incoming problems and tickets and I still need help triaging the tickets. James Turnbull has volunteered to help some, but I think we need more than one person. We''ve had a few people step in once or twice, but I''d like to be able to depend on Unreviewed tickets getting handled by someone else, rather

On May 28, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > I guess, looking back at Nick's comment: > > "The atom model is a good fit for the llvm compiler model for all architectures. There is a one-to-one mapping between llvm::GlobalObject (e.g. function or global variable) and lld:DefinedAtom." > > it seems that the primary issue on the

...x a process in that case though), we can write a verifier to check for file correctness rigorously so that we can guarantee that object files are as trustworthy as freshly-created object files. I think this feature is a reasonable addition to the linker. As to the mutable shared state, my current (unproved) idea is to make them thread local variables. Since no one yet has come up to say "hey, we are actually trying to run multiple instances of the linker in the same process simultaneously but LLD doesn't allow that", that's not implemented yet, but technically I think it's doabl...

Hey Timo, Just curious if you ever thought about supporting other than just OpenSSL? PolarSSL looks really interesting, has no major dependencies and is very lightweight compared to OpenSSL, GNUTLS or others... https://polarssl.org/ I guess it could be a lot of work, or not, anyway, I'm just curious... -- Best regards, */Charles/*

I thought I''d put this out there for anyone to save anyone who''s running 0.22.4 on AMD64 hosts a whole world of hurt. Basically, the libshadow-ruby1.8 package that Puppet (as of 0.22.4) relies on is broken for AMD64 in both Debian (Sarge+) and Ubuntu (all releases). The problem is basically just some non-portable code. I''ve reported the bug into Debian with a patch, so

Hi. I''d like to use exception handling in my custom facts. For example, in plain Ruby: begin buildno = '''' bcrelease = open("/etc/BCrelease") while (line = bcrelease.gets) line = line.chomp buildno = $1 if line =~ /^Build:\s+(\d+)/ end bcrelease.close print "#{buildno}\n" rescue print "No

...ot only bad > for parallelism but also for a single-thread case because it increase size > of data to be processed. This is I believe the true bottleneck of Unix > linkers. Tackling that problem seems to be most important to me, and "ELF > as a file format is slow" is still an unproved thing to me. > > >> >> 2) I think the ELF camp still thinks that linkers are “dumb”. That they >> just collate .o files into executable files. The darwin linker does a lot >> of processing/optimizing the content (e.g. Objective-C optimizing, dead >> stripping,...

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:29 PM, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > On May 29, 2015, at 10:08 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > Large part of the difficulties in development of the current LLD comes > from over-generalizataion to share code between pretty much different file > formats. > > ISTM the problem that's been described

...ogic to process EH FDE's which may need to error out if invalid. You don't necessarily want to validate them all up front as it may be too slow, so I can understand that this isn't necessarily trivial to handle in a performant way. > > As to the mutable shared state, my current (unproved) idea is to make them thread local variables. Since no one yet has come up to say "hey, we are actually trying to run multiple instances of the linker in the same process simultaneously but LLD doesn't allow that", that's not implemented yet, but technically I think it's doabl...

...> for parallelism but also for a single-thread case because it increase size >> of data to be processed. This is I believe the true bottleneck of Unix >> linkers. Tackling that problem seems to be most important to me, and "ELF >> as a file format is slow" is still an unproved thing to me. >> >> >>> >>> 2) I think the ELF camp still thinks that linkers are “dumb”. That they >>> just collate .o files into executable files. The darwin linker does a lot >>> of processing/optimizing the content (e.g. Objective-C optimizing, d...

...allelism but also for a single-thread case because it increase size >>> of data to be processed. This is I believe the true bottleneck of Unix >>> linkers. Tackling that problem seems to be most important to me, and "ELF >>> as a file format is slow" is still an unproved thing to me. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 2) I think the ELF camp still thinks that linkers are “dumb”. That >>>> they just collate .o files into executable files. The darwin linker does a >>>> lot of processing/optimizing the content (e.g. O...

...also for a single-thread case because it >>>> increase size of data to be processed. This is I believe the true >>>> bottleneck of Unix linkers. Tackling that problem seems to be most >>>> important to me, and "ELF as a file format is slow" is still an unproved >>>> thing to me. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2) I think the ELF camp still thinks that linkers are “dumb”. That >>>>> they just collate .o files into executable files. The darwin linker does a >>>>> lot of...

...process EH FDE's which may need to error out if invalid. You don't necessarily want to validate them all up front as it may be too slow, so I can understand that this isn't necessarily trivial to handle in a performant way. >> >> As to the mutable shared state, my current (unproved) idea is to make them thread local variables. Since no one yet has come up to say "hey, we are actually trying to run multiple instances of the linker in the same process simultaneously but LLD doesn't allow that", that's not implemented yet, but technically I think it's doabl...