similar to: [PATCH] Opacify on resizing & Opacify non opaque windows on resizing/moving

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 17:28, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > opaque pointers don't exist in the IR yet - the goal is to reduce the places that use non-opacity of pointer types already/today and then opacify the existing pointer type, rather than introducing an opaque pointer type & having it concurrently with non-opaque pointer types. (though in retrospect

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 21:24, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: > > Currently, LLVM often uses the *i8 type (pointer to char) to represent > a pointer to some not-specified type. We are also working on replacing > the pointer-to-type pointer types by a single pointer type without a > specific pointee-type. Look for "opaque pointer" on llvm-dev and the

Dominique, cc: compiz, Dominique, you wanted the feedback, and List, I need your help. I have installed and fully configured (kicked the tires) on compiz 8.6 on openSuSE 11.0 and on balance it is great. There are a few weird things going on. Most notably, the number of options in ccsm that now uncheck themselves. In the past (compiz 0.5.6 - 0.8.2) there may have been one or two that would stick

First, I would like to compliment you all for a great work you put in developing compiz. I have it running for more that a month and it did not crash. Stability is very good. Great work! Today I updated compiz from git tree and found that rotate generates this error: compiz (core) - Error: Couldn't activate plugin 'rotate' Rotate does not function. Any ideas ? I run gconf

Last night I reworked compiz-aiglx patch from Kristian H?gsberg to get it working (i.e. patching and running) with latest compiz cvs. Most plugins and features are working again now : wobbly, minimize, resize, cube, rotate, move, fade, scale, place, zoom. However the last two plugins, switcher and decoration are broken. Decoration just draws nothing, I found that the problematic function call is

Compiz Fusion Release 0.5.2 is out! This is the first development release of Compiz Fusion, the result of more than six months of work and polish. The first stable release, 0.6.0, will follow after the Compiz 0.6.0 release. Compiz Fusion is the result of a merge between the Compiz community plugin set "Compiz Extras" and the parts of the Beryl project that are independent of the

Hi, I have made a patch for enabling the use of ECDSA keys in the PKCS#11 support of ssh-agent which will be of interest to other users. I have tested it with P-256 keys. P-384 and P-521 should work out-of-the box. The code is ready for non-FIPS curves (named or explicit), but OpenSSH currently limits ECDSA to those 3 curves. At high level it works like the support for RSA, but because of

Hello. System info: OS: FC6 x86_64 video: Nvidia GF 7900 GT, driver version 97.55 compiz version: git config backend used: ccp I can reproduce this crash every time on my system. When blur plugin is active and I try to access any right-click menu, regular application menu or drop-down list, compiz crashes. Backtrace produced by crashhandler plugin shows crash in blur.c in function

Bugs item #15225, was opened at 2007-10-31 01:38 You can respond by visiting: http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=218&aid=15225&group_id=35 Category: Incorrect behavior Group: current Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 3 Submitted By: Nobody (None) Assigned to: Nobody (None) Summary: Wx::Region.contains returns an opaque SWIG pointer type Initial Comment: On Windows

I'm looking at and running: test/Regression/Assembler/2005-05-05-OpaqueUndefValues.ll which says: ; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llvm-dis | llvm-as %t = type opaque %x = global %t undef Why is this valid? Shouldn't the assembler reject it (it doesn't)? How can a global variable be defined as opaque? What's it size? Does this just indicate that %x is some "unknown

{ i32, i32, opaque } When I try running through JIT the code, incrementing the field in such structure, I am getting an assert: Assertion failed: (Ty->isSized() && "`!"), function getAlignment, file /tmp/llvm-build/2.7/llvm/lib/Target/TargetData.cpp, line 498. I understand that C/C++ can't possibly produce such structure due to their language limitations. But llvm is

Dear LLVM members. Hi. I have a question. I woule like to know whether or not a global variable with abstract or opaque type can has initializer (constructor). For example, general assembly code: %struct.test = type { [10 x i8] } @ovm = global %struct.test { [10 x i8] c"ovmtest\00\00\00" } question: %struct.test = type { [10 x i8], opaque } @ovm = global %struct.test { [10 x

There is an issue with representing opaque types in LLVM IR modules: if two modules are using the same opaque type (which is only going to be specialised at some later stage), it is only identified by its name. But the current module linker "resolves" this as if there is a name clash, and one of that opaque types is renamed. It contradicts an intuitively expected identifier behaviour

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Anton Lokhmotov <Anton.Lokhmotov at arm.com>wrote: > There is an issue with representing opaque types in LLVM IR modules: if two > modules are using the same opaque type (which is only going to be > specialised at some later stage), it is only identified by its name. But > the current module linker "resolves" this as if there is a name

On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 AM, Talin wrote: > What do you mean "the linker fails"? Type mismatches should not cause the linker to fail. In any case, this example should link, please provide a minimal example of two .ll files that repros what you're seeing with llvm-link. Thanks, > > It's llvm-ld that asserts here: > > Assertion failed: (N < NumContainedTys

Is it legal to substitute non struct type instead of opaque type? For example: ; 1.ll declare void @F(i32*) ; 2.ll %T1 = type opaque declare void @F(%T1*) Is it normal to replace T1 with i32 here? If yes. Will the next types are isomorphic?: %T1 = type opaque { i32, %T1* } { i32, i32* } -Stepan.

On Dec 20, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: > Is it legal to substitute non struct type instead of opaque type? > > For example: > ; 1.ll > declare void @F(i32*) > > ; 2.ll > %T1 = type opaque > declare void @F(%T1*) > > Is it normal to replace T1 with i32 here? Yes, the linker will do this, because it is forced to break type safety to link up the

OK. So if we have two modules with the same function name. This functions may not be isomorphic. For example, we can link this files, but the function types are not isomorphic: ; 1.ll %T1 = type opaque declare i32 @foo(%T1*) ; 2.ll define i32 @foo(i32* %v) {...something...} But at the same time we should not map next two functions (PR11627): ; 3.ll declare i32 @foo(i16* %v) ; 4.ll define

I'm building a StructType without a body using StructType *StructType::create(LLVMContext &Context, StringRef Name); and then later adding a body to with setBody(). It starts of isOpaque() == true, and isSized() == false, and after I add the body, isOpaque() == false, but isSized() is still false. If I create a StructType using StructType * StructType ::create(LLVMContext

Hi Rick, On 22/01/13 09:04, Rick Mann wrote: > I'm building a StructType without a body using > > StructType *StructType::create(LLVMContext &Context, StringRef Name); > > and then later adding a body to with setBody(). It starts of isOpaque() == true, and isSized() == false, and after I add the body, isOpaque() == false, but isSized() is still false. this is the standard