similar to: [Bug 1347] New: LLONG_MAX v LONGLONG_MAX

>From: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> >Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:49:01 -0500 (CDT) > >There is currently support for building in non-cygwin windows environments >protected by _MSC_VER. You just need to broaden the scope of the #ifndef >to include internix. > Sorry Chris, but my DataTypes.h.in seems to be outdated (due to I'm porting LLVM 1.2), so I'm not

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1171 Summary: configure can't always figure out LLONG_MAX. Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Build system AssignedTo: bitbucket at mindrot.org

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1171 dtucker at zip.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED ------- Comment #5 from dtucker at zip.com.au 2006-09-28 19:26 ------- With the release of 4.4, we believe that this bug is

Hi all. For a while, gcc has supported a stack protection mechanism (-fstack-protector and friends, available in gcc 4.1.2 and up). Can anyone think of a good reason not to enable it if the compiler supports it? A quick test here shows minimal difference in runtime over a full regress pass (~10sec over 8.5 minutes, and since the machine is not entirely idle that could be experimental error).

Thanks, Andy. I'm not sure how to solve that or my case given the DAG's basic-block limit. Probably CodeGenPrepare or SelectionDAGBuilder...or we wait until after isel and try to split it up in a machine instruction pass. I filed my example here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33013 Feel free to comment there and/or open a new bug for the FP_TO_UINT case. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=688 David Leonard <David.Leonard at quest.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |David.Leonard at quest.com -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1104 Summary: Compile error "ldLL" not declared in strtonum.c under Tru64 Unix 4.0f Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 4.2p1 Platform: Alpha OS/Version: OSF/1 Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P2 Component: Build system

Sounds like the select lowering issue is definitely separate from the FENV work. Is there a bug report with a C or IR example? You want to generate compare and branch instead of a cmov for something like this? int foo(float x) { if (x < 42.0f) return x; return 12; } define i32 @foo(float %x) { %cmp = fcmp olt float %x, 4.200000e+01 %conv = fptosi float %x to i32 %ret = select

I think it’s generally true that whenever branches can reliably be predicted branching is faster than a cmov that involves speculative execution, and I would guess that your assessment regarding looping on input values is probably correct. I believe the code that actually creates most of the transformation you’re interested in here is in SelectionDAGLegalize::ExpandNode() in LegalizeDAG.cpp. The

Hi- I always encounter the same two minor compilation issues which are easily addressed simply by a quick edit, but this time I figured I'd mention it in case you can work around it. This is on a BSD/OS 4.2 system. First, the generated config.h always creates a definition for OFF_T_MAX which conflicts with the one in the system's limits.h config.h defines: #define OFF_T_MAX LLONG_MAX

>From: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> >Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:49:01 -0500 (CDT) >The file you need to modify is here: >llvm/include/Support/DataTypes.h.in > >There is currently support for building in non-cygwin windows environments >protected by _MSC_VER. You just need to broaden the scope of the #ifndef >to include internix. > Sorry, Chris, but my

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Henrik Bach wrote: > >There is currently support for building in non-cygwin windows environments > >protected by _MSC_VER. You just need to broaden the scope of the #ifndef > >to include internix. > > > > Sorry Chris, but my DataTypes.h.in seems to be outdated (due to I'm porting > LLVM 1.2), so I'm not at the moment able to edit the

Hi Andy, I’m interested to try out your patches… I understand the scope of FENV_ACCESS is relatively wide, however I’m still curious if you managed to figure out how to prevent the SelectionDAGLegalize::ExpandNode() FP_TO_UINT lowering of the FPToUI intrinsic from producing the predicate logic that incorrectly sets the floating point accrued exceptions due to unconditional execution of the

Here is a re-post of PR#19365 which was originally post back in Aug.. If anyone can help I am still looking for a solution ! Forwarded message: > > Hi Jeremy ! > > Don't know if you remember this one but it is definetely turning > my hair grey :) I have left your original reply at the end. > > I finally have a configuration which works with Bentley's >

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, Chris Rapier wrote: > I was wondering if there was something specific to the internal chacha20 > cipher as opposed to OpenSSL implementation. > > I can't just change the block size because it breaks compatibility. I can do > something like as a hack (though it would probably be better to do it with the > compat function): > > if

If we race with commit code setting i_transaction to NULL, we could possibly dereference it. Proper locking requires journal pointer (journal->j_list_lock) we don't have. So we have to change the prototype of the function so that filesystem passes us the journal pointer. Also add more detailed comment about why function does what it does how it should be used. Thanks to Dan Carpenter

I'm hardly an expert on this, but if I remember correctly, the rekey rate for good security is mostly dependent on the cipher block size. I left my reference books at home; so, I can't come up with a reference for you, but I would take Chris' "I'm deeply unsure of what impact that would have on the security of the cipher" comment seriously and switch to a cipher with a

From: Jan Kara <jack at suse.cz> If we race with commit code setting i_transaction to NULL, we could possibly dereference it. Proper locking requires the journal pointer (to access journal->j_list_lock), which we don't have. So we have to change the prototype of the function so that filesystem passes us the journal pointer. Also add a more detailed comment about why the function

Hi all, I'm attempting to move the AddressSanitizer pass from the legacy PassManager to the new one because the new one has various benefits over legacy and wanted to clarify on something. Does creating the static RegisterPass struct register the pass with the new PassManager? It seems that RegisterPass does the same things that the INITIALIZE_PASS_* macros do but it registers the pass with

Hello John, On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 16:33 +0000, John Hodrien wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > > > How about my request for checksums in the git repo? > > What checksums would you actually want in git? SRPMS are signed which allows the integrity of the contents to be checked. Such an integrity check is missing from the git repo. Either a checksum