search for: vociferously

Hi Mark, I don't think anyone will dispute that it's easier to hack up a shadow stack (or plug into a conservative collector) to get up and running with GC. That is absolutely the route to go if portability trumps performance. If you review the mailing list history, I think you'll also find that developers who do care about performance have been disappointed with the impact

Hi, I realise this might be a bit controversial ;) Suppose I am writing a VM (such as VMKit), or a VM toolkit, and I want to add a generational GC. If I want to use the llvm.gcwrite intrinsic for my write barrier then I need to write a GC and then implement for each and *every* backend the gcwrite intrinsic for my write barrier. Now, if I don't use the intrinsic, I need to write my write

Gordon Henriksen wrote: > Hi Mark, > > I don't think anyone will dispute that it's easier to hack up a shadow > stack (or plug into a conservative collector) to get up and running > with GC. That is absolutely the route to go if portability trumps > performance. Why? LLVM is all about portability AND performance. > > If you review the mailing list history,

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/16/2011 01:47 PM, Rob James wrote: > Ben, > > Thanks for this. Very helpful and clearly others have tripped over the > same problem > I would have supposed that the solution was to ask lrm (or glm) to use > LR rather than Wald, but I don't see syntax to achieve this. Typically drop1 or dropterm (MASS package) will drop

On Feb 27, 2009, at 12:56, Mark Shannon wrote: > Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> The ultimate endgoal is to support schemes with still-lower >> execution overhead. The next step for LLVM GC would be elimination >> of the reload penalty for using GC intrinsics with a copying >> collector. This, again, requires that the code generator perform >> bookkeeping

...this. I've stated what numerous actual employment and IP lawyers who practice in germany have told me (multiple times, now, and in the past). You want to argue that it's wrong. Fine. I honestly don't care. But you should not expect me to take your opinion over theirs, even if you argue vociferously, because they are the folks who have tried to do these things in practice. I don't even have the same lawyers as the foundation, etc, and i'm sure they've vetted these issue as well. So i'm going to say: believe what you like. But i don't think it's reasonable to expect...

hey guys I thought I was making progress on my dialplan when I realized that the class features that are available for zap channels aren't available for SIP channels. I see references in the archives to adding pattern matches in the dialplan for CLASS features which has raised a couple questions. 1. Is implementing CLASS like features via the dialplan the currently recommended way to do

Mark Shannon wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: >> On Thursday 26 February 2009 17:25:56 Chris Lattner wrote: >>> In my ideal world, this would be: >>> >>> 1. Subsystems [with clean interfaces] for thread management, >>> finalization, object model interactions, etc. >>> 2. Within different high-level designs (e.g. copying, mark/sweep, etc) >>>

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > Just because one particular method of prophylaxis fails to protect against all threats doesn?t mean we should stop using it, or increase its strength. Actually it does.There is no more obvious head butting than with strong passwords vs usability. Strong login passwords and usability are diametrically opposed.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:10:40AM -0700, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Let's start with: In just about every country in the world, anyone > > contributing on behalf of their company are exercising their employers > > copyright (in most cases, even if they do it in

On Oct 17, 2018, at 3:28 PM, Mark Rousell <mark.rousell at signal100.com> wrote: > > On 17/10/2018 20:03, Warren Young wrote: >> On Oct 17, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Mark Rousell <mark.rousell at signal100.com> wrote: >>> launchd is not being forced on them as systemd is in practice >> Try doing without launchd on macOS. > > If launchd was on Linux and it

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 (Sorry if you get more than one copy of this message, but I felt that it was urgent to get this important info out.) The values of freedom and openness are crucial to understanding itself, so that civilization and public welfare now depend on them, as I argue below. These values may find their best expression in the free and open source software

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 (Sorry if you get more than one copy of this message, but I felt that it was urgent to get this important info out.) The values of freedom and openness are crucial to understanding itself, so that civilization and public welfare now depend on them, as I argue below. These values may find their best expression in the free and open source software

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 (Sorry if you get more than one copy of this message, but I felt that it was urgent to get this important info out.) The values of freedom and openness are crucial to understanding itself, so that civilization and public welfare now depend on them, as I argue below. These values may find their best expression in the free and open source software

On 10/17/18 7:55 PM, Warren Young wrote: > On Oct 17, 2018, at 3:28 PM, Mark Rousell <mark.rousell at signal100.com> wrote: >> >> On 17/10/2018 20:03, Warren Young wrote: >>> On Oct 17, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Mark Rousell <mark.rousell at signal100.com> wrote: >>>> launchd is not being forced on them as systemd is in practice >>> Try doing

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 (Sorry if you get more than one copy of this message, but I felt that it was urgent to get this important info out.) The values of freedom and openness are crucial to understanding itself, so that civilization and public welfare now depend on them, as I argue below. These values may find their best expression in the free and open source software

...in other ways. And Apple and Microsoft have been working to kill login passwords for a while. Google and Facebook too. No one likes them. And our trust in them is diminishing. They are not long term tenable. Making longer ones compulsory already causes companies who do so grief as people complain vociferously about such policies. > I have no strong feelings on the new libpwquality rules, exactly. What I do feel strongly about is that there should be *some* reasonable minima that can?t easily be bypassed. This idea that opt in is not sufficient demonstrates how archaic and busted computer security...

On Oct 17, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Mark Rousell <mark.rousell at signal100.com> wrote: > > launchd is not being forced on them as systemd is in practice Try doing without launchd on macOS. If you think that?s irrelevant, count the number of MacBooks at the next FreeBSD conference you attend. For an init system to gain sufficient momentum, it must be the default, with no easy way to

Hello, I believe that ZFS and it''s concepts is truly revolutionary to the point that I no longer see any OS as modern if it does not have comparable storage functionality. Therefore I think that file system/disk manager with similar qualities should be written for Linux. Does Sun have plans to dual license ZFS as GPL so it can be ported to native Linux? If not, is it legal to write

Not sure if it''s been posted yet, my email is currently down... http://weblog.infoworld.com/yager/archives/2007/10/suns_zfs_is_clo.html Interesting piece. This is the second post from Yager that shows solaris in a pretty good light. I particularly like his closing comment: "If you haven''t checked out ZFS yet, do, because it will eventually become ubiquitously implemented