similar to: tsan_interface_java.h; any users? reviving https://github.com/google/java-thread-sanitizer?

> > On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:51 AM, Jiri Danek via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I found https://github.com/google/java-thread-sanitizer, which seems to > be now abandoned. It used to work with ThreadSanitizer v1. Has anybody ever > tried to make it work with the current ThreadSanitizer? > > I gave it a try and bending java-thread-sanitizer to my

The interface files you see are for a prototype of Java Tsan that's internal to Google. It's for use by a JDK that we customized with extensive JVM patches, and enables running the Tsan engine on Java and native code simultaneously. We presented this prototype recently at the JVM Language Summit. Here's the talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UykhZ36W04I We are starting to explore

http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=871 Summary: ''zpool key -l'' core dumped with keysource=hex,prompt and unmatched entered in Classification: Development Product: zfs-crypto Version: unspecified Platform: Other OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Severity: minor

I just came across this problem (on Linux, using OpenSSH 2.9.9p2). Run ssh <host> "tail -f <file> | grep <regexp>" Let it connect, and then hit ^C. If you look on <host>, the tail process has been orphaned, but grep, which was its parent, and a direct child of sshd, is gone. It appears that the immediate child of the sshd (grep) is sent a SIGTERM (on line

I am sponsoring this fasttrack for John Levon. It is set to expire on 3/14/2007. Note that this is an externally visible case. liane --- SMF services for Xen 1. Introduction This case introduces the SMF services used by a Solaris-based domain 0 when running on Xen, or a Xen-compatible hypervisor. All of these services only run on domain 0 when booted under Xen virtualisation.

Hi folks - reviving an old thread from 2010: http://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2010-December/055837.html We're basically looking to do the same thing: require client certificates for external connections, while preserving certificate-less username/password authentication for internal connections. Any tips on the best way to accomplish this? 'ssl_verify_client_cert = yes' can

Please do take over the pass revival. College hasn't left me with the bandwidth to continue this side project :) If there's small things here and there, I'd be happy to pitch in. However,.whipping the patch into shape is beyond me right now. Thanks Siddharth On Fri 23 Mar, 2018, 00:53 via llvm-dev, <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > >> This work could also

>> This work could also be used to fix [3]. Although this probably needs >> more though because there's the question of whether we should preserve >> existing debug information in an LLVM IR file or write over it when it >> is given to Clang. > > > If foo.ll contains edited debug info, `clang -g` shouldn't silently drop the > edits. A warning + no-op

I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM 3.0? On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > There was some discussion a while back about adding a C++0x-style > memory model and atomics for LLVM a while

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language > reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and > atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM 3.0? Hopefully, yes; the implementation is in progress. -Eli

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language >> reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and >> atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM

On 11/10/2014 12:45 PM, Kristian Lyngstøl wrote: > > First thing first: Compiz has been using version 0.9 for almost half a decade, and clearly deviated from past > conventions of using 0.<odd> for development and 0.<even> for stable. In addition, a fourth digit has been added. > > In the long run I'd like to see the project drop the fourth digit and instead go

>> This work could also be used to fix [3]. Although this probably needs >> more though because there's the question of whether we should preserve >> existing debug information in an LLVM IR file or write over it when it >> is given to Clang. > > If foo.ll contains edited debug info, `clang -g` shouldn't silently drop > the edits. A warning + no-op seems

Hello, after upgrading to a newer distribution (FC8), I found that the driver hp.c (used to work fine for me with nut 2.0.0 on FC6) does not work anymore with 2.2.0. I want to modify it, as it is contains much of the new structure (>1.4.0) already. However, I cannot even get "make" to touch it. I have copied it into the drivers directory. Then I did ./configure make All drivers

C++ and Java memory models impose restrictions for locks and unlocks, such as a thread that releases a lock must acquired the lock, or the number of locks must be larger than the number of unlocks in the same thread... for enabling some optimizations, for example, simplifying trylocks (http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2008/HPL-2008-56.html), and moving some instructions inside lock acquires

On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Emilien KIA wrote: > 2014/1/15 Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com>: >> Emilien, >> >> just saw your commit in Buildbot for testing some Windows changes. That's great that someone is working on this again! >> We have had a few users ask for updates to the 2.6.5+ version of NUT for Windows. > > I am just fixing some bugs

In the definition of 'monotonic' ordering, ... "If an address is written monotonically by one thread, and other threads monotonically read that address repeatedly, the other threads must eventually see the write"... Does this mean if a thread does multi-writes monotonically, monotonic reads from other threads should see all of them? But intuitively, it seems to be fine for a

The current memory model section ends with the following discussions: "Note that in cases where none of the atomic intrinsics are used, this model places only one restriction on IR transformations on top of what is required for single-threaded execution: introducing a store to a byte which might not otherwise be stored to can introduce undefined behavior.... " Why is introducing

compiz.org hasn't been updated properly in almost half a decade, and there's a lot of misleading or downright wrong information out there right now. There's a launchpad ticket on it [1], but the subject isn't quite covered by a simple bug as it stands. First thing first: Compiz has been using version 0.9 for almost half a decade, and clearly deviated from past conventions of

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> In the definition of 'monotonic' ordering, >> ... "If an address is written monotonically by one thread, and other >> threads monotonically read that address repeatedly, the other