search for: unrefin

...d foo(int n) available_externally { if (n s< (n +nsw 1)) abort(); } void bar() { if (< runtine cond always false>) foo(INT_SMAX); } Now foo() can be simplified to "ret void" using the nsw, and the call to foo(INT_SMAX) can be hoisted. This is a problem if we link to an unrefined @foo. -- Sanjoy

Damien, Thanks for the response. Are you aware of any sftp server products that currently implement the uid / gid resolution or is this new draft just too unrefined / recent. Also, is there a definitive source for these drafts and where might they be published? Up till now I have just been reading the documentation available from www.openssh.org. I hope these questions aren't too annoying. If there is a better place to get answers for questions of...

...e. reduced the set of behaviors it may have) in ways that would make later optimizations invalid if we de-refine the implementation of @foo(). The above example is clearly fabricated, but such cases can come up even if everything is optimized to the same level. E.g. one of the atomic loads in the unrefined implementation of @foo() could have been hidden behind a function call, whose body existed in only one module. That module would then be able to refine @foo() to `ret void` but other modules won't. The only solution I can think of is to redefine available_externally to mean "the only ki...

...'re allowed to replace the body of a function with a differently optimized body, then the above problem exists. >> The above example is clearly fabricated, but such cases can come up >> even if everything is optimized to the same level. E.g. one of the >> atomic loads in the unrefined implementation of @foo() could have been >> hidden behind a function call, whose body existed in only one module. >> That module would then be able to refine @foo() to `ret void` but >> other modules won't. >> >> The only solution I can think of is to redefine av...

...externally. Which is what makes this scary: every C++ inline function today can trigger this. > > >> The above example is clearly fabricated, but such cases can come up > >> even if everything is optimized to the same level. E.g. one of the > >> atomic loads in the unrefined implementation of @foo() could have been > >> hidden behind a function call, whose body existed in only one module. > >> That module would then be able to refine @foo() to `ret void` but > >> other modules won't. > >> > >> The only solution I can t...

...haviors it may have) in ways that would make later > optimizations invalid if we de-refine the implementation of @foo(). > > The above example is clearly fabricated, but such cases can come up > even if everything is optimized to the same level. E.g. one of the > atomic loads in the unrefined implementation of @foo() could have been > hidden behind a function call, whose body existed in only one module. > That module would then be able to refine @foo() to `ret void` but > other modules won't. > > The only solution I can think of is to redefine available_externally &...

...make the CSE invalid? Does linkonce_odr linkage have the same problem? - If so, do you want to change it too? - Else, why not? > The above example is clearly fabricated, but such cases can come up > even if everything is optimized to the same level. E.g. one of the > atomic loads in the unrefined implementation of @foo() could have been > hidden behind a function call, whose body existed in only one module. > That module would then be able to refine @foo() to `ret void` but > other modules won't. > > The only solution I can think of is to redefine available_externally...

...the kind per instance 100 USD licenses I see are going to blow my budget. Current progress is... I see that OPENSCAP and OVAL have tools in CentOS-base or EPEL, such as OpenSCAP-utils ovaldi - oval reference interpreter Which can be used to create reports. However they seem a little unrefined. For SCAP and OVAL content I have found the following. 1. NIST provide SCAP content for RHEL desktop, which is kinda close; 2. http://usgcb.nist.gov/usgcb/rhel_content.html 3. There is a tool called sectool in the fedora repos, but I can't get it to run on CentOS due to a missing python-sl...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Philip Reames" > <listmail at philipreames.com>, "Duncan P. N. Exon Smith"

With 2.0.x, I believe, print job names were automatically massaged to remove evil characters such as "/" and "," etc. Now in 2.2.x, the job names are smbprn... etc. unless you specify (in LPRng's case) -J%J for the job name. However, the format of the job name is unrefined and is causing me trouble. Is there any way to get back the pre-2.2.x behavior without writing some sort of filter or wrapper for the print command= script? Thanks! ---- _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ |Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | | Ryan Novosielski - Jr. UNIX Systems Admin |$&| |__| | | |__/ | \|...

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > It might be much more challenging, but let's try. This is not an > issue we need to fix by the end of the month, and the potential > optimization regressions are significant. Our deductions of > readonly/readnone/nocapture/etc. are really important for enabling > other optimizations. Given that all

Hi, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: >> I haven't tracked the Assignment of the SubModeID through the source >> code, so I just wanted to ask, if I can assume "speexenc -n" to use >> SubModeID 5 always? > > Only if you never change the bit-rate. But speexenc -n was a dumb idea > in the first place... I know ... Thats why I downsampled the WAV-File to 8kHz (I got

Hi, What is the magic juju that I have to put in /etc/sysconfig/autofs to get autofs to default to using NFSv4, rather than NFSv3, for mounting file systems? I don't want to place these flags into the automount maps themselves because we have a varied network with Sun, CentOS, RedHat and Macintosh systems, and the flags that have to get added to automount maps (which we distribute centrally

...seems to have a pretty huge impact on optimizability > of comdats. > > >> >> The above example is clearly fabricated, but such cases can come up > >> >> even if everything is optimized to the same level. E.g. one of the > >> >> atomic loads in the unrefined implementation of @foo() could have been > >> >> hidden behind a function call, whose body existed in only one module. > >> >> That module would then be able to refine @foo() to `ret void` but > >> >> other modules won't. > >> >> &gt...

...static int intel_vgpu_create(struct kobject *kobj, > > struct mdev_device *mdev) > > > ret = 0; > > > > > > mdev_set_class_id(mdev, MDEV_ID_VFIO); > > > + mdev_set_dev_ops(mdev, &intel_vfio_vgpu_dev_ops); > > > > This seems rather unrefined. We're registering interdependent data in > > separate calls. All drivers need to make both of these calls. I'm not > > sure if this is a good idea, but what if we had: > > > > static const struct vfio_mdev_device_ops intel_vfio_vgpu_dev_ops = { > >...

...static int intel_vgpu_create(struct kobject *kobj, > > struct mdev_device *mdev) > > > ret = 0; > > > > > > mdev_set_class_id(mdev, MDEV_ID_VFIO); > > > + mdev_set_dev_ops(mdev, &intel_vfio_vgpu_dev_ops); > > > > This seems rather unrefined. We're registering interdependent data in > > separate calls. All drivers need to make both of these calls. I'm not > > sure if this is a good idea, but what if we had: > > > > static const struct vfio_mdev_device_ops intel_vfio_vgpu_dev_ops = { > >...

...aviors it may have) in ways that would make later > optimizations invalid if we de-refine the implementation of @foo(). > > The above example is clearly fabricated, but such cases can come up > even if everything is optimized to the same level. E.g. one of the > atomic loads in the unrefined implementation of @foo() could have been > hidden behind a function call, whose body existed in only one module. > That module would then be able to refine @foo() to `ret void` but > other modules won't. > > The only solution I can think of is to redefine available_externally...

...e ones that use atomics, right? Not that I'm sure that will end up being a helpful distinction. > >> The above example is clearly fabricated, but such cases can come up > >> even if everything is optimized to the same level. E.g. one of the > >> atomic loads in the unrefined implementation of @foo() could have been > >> hidden behind a function call, whose body existed in only one module. > >> That module would then be able to refine @foo() to `ret void` but > >> other modules won't. > >> > >> The only solution I can t...

...) > { > struct intel_vgpu *vgpu = NULL; > @@ -679,6 +682,7 @@ static int intel_vgpu_create(struct kobject *kobj, struct mdev_device *mdev) > ret = 0; > > mdev_set_class_id(mdev, MDEV_ID_VFIO); > + mdev_set_dev_ops(mdev, &intel_vfio_vgpu_dev_ops); This seems rather unrefined. We're registering interdependent data in separate calls. All drivers need to make both of these calls. I'm not sure if this is a good idea, but what if we had: static const struct vfio_mdev_device_ops intel_vfio_vgpu_dev_ops = { .id = MDEV_ID_VFIO, .open = intel_vgpu_open, ....

...) > { > struct intel_vgpu *vgpu = NULL; > @@ -679,6 +682,7 @@ static int intel_vgpu_create(struct kobject *kobj, struct mdev_device *mdev) > ret = 0; > > mdev_set_class_id(mdev, MDEV_ID_VFIO); > + mdev_set_dev_ops(mdev, &intel_vfio_vgpu_dev_ops); This seems rather unrefined. We're registering interdependent data in separate calls. All drivers need to make both of these calls. I'm not sure if this is a good idea, but what if we had: static const struct vfio_mdev_device_ops intel_vfio_vgpu_dev_ops = { .id = MDEV_ID_VFIO, .open = intel_vgpu_open, ....