similar to: [LLVMdev] Proposed BC Changes

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 18:43, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > I don't understand what you're getting at here. You can change char to > > default to unsigned right now with llvm-gcc -funsigned-char. I don't > > understand how that would change anything to be more useful though. > > The only thing it would change is

On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 18:43, Chris Lattner wrote: > I don't understand what you're getting at here. You can change char to > default to unsigned right now with llvm-gcc -funsigned-char. I don't > understand how that would change anything to be more useful though. The only thing it would change is that character constants with values > 63 would get encoded in 1 byte

On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 19:10, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > > > The only thing it would change is that character constants with values > > > 63 would get encoded in 1 byte instead of 2 (with current > > implementation). I'm making a change that will ALWAYS encode UByteTyID > > and SByteTyID constants in 1 byte which would

On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 17:39, Robert Mykland wrote: > No, you're not getting the point. The bytecode is bloated by pointers to > all types. Every time a type is defined pretty much a pointer is defined > with it already, and since the pointer type is not implied by the > definition of the literal, we waste two or more bytes whenever we define a > type. I'm advocating

Hi, I use dovecot with IMAP over SSL and with Plain Text authentication. I've been using that for quite a while, but now (with my new PC), it's not working like it should (I tried several 1.0* releases, including 1.0-rc6. The problem is that I can't move messages from one IMAP folder to another, no matter which mail client. When I use KMail, I get: "The connection to the

Currently, Structure layout is left to targets, which implement them according to the ABI of that platform. While this is fine for most structures, it makes packed structures very ugly. All fields in a packed type must be converted to byte arrays with casts to access fields, which bloats accesses and obsfucates the types. First class support for packed types would clean up the generated code

Le 17/03/2015 14:45, Rowland Penny a ?crit : > On 17/03/15 13:29, S?bastien Le Ray wrote: >> >> >> Le 17/03/2015 14:25, Rowland Penny a ?crit : >>> Ah, but from my testing, winbindd on 4.2 works very similar to >>> winbind, it still ignores most of the RFC2307 attributes and as I >>> understand it, trusts still do not work. >> Mmmm

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > It's 127 right, not 63? Also, what does this have to do with sbyte vs > > ubyte? > > No, its 63. Signed bit takes up one bit and "continue bit" takes up > another so signed values 0-63 get the first byte and 64-127 get the > second, etc. Just to clarify, it's actually -64 -> 63 that are one byte values.

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:38:40AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > +static int queue_depth = 64; > > +module_param(queue_depth, int, 444); > > 444? Really Ted? Oops, *blush*. Thanks for catching that. - Ted

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:38:40AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > +static int queue_depth = 64; > > +module_param(queue_depth, int, 444); > > 444? Really Ted? Oops, *blush*. Thanks for catching that. - Ted

At 02:05 PM 8/20/2004, you wrote: >Robert Mykland wrote: >>Dear Chris and Reid: > >Hi Robert. > >>Some other random ideas I've had as I've been sifting through the new >>bytecode format. Please let me know what you think. >>1) ANSI C allows for char to default to unsigned char. This is I guess >>not how it normally is in GCC. If char defaulted

On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig with this > now: Good idea. > diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h [] > @@ -188,6 +188,9 @@ struct kparam_array > /* Default value instead of permissions? */ \ > static int __param_perm_check_##name

On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig with this > now: Good idea. > diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h [] > @@ -188,6 +188,9 @@ struct kparam_array > /* Default value instead of permissions? */ \ > static int __param_perm_check_##name

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Robert Mykland wrote: > >In any case, both signed and unsigned 8-bit constants can be written out > >in a single byte. Again, do you think it's worth special casing this > >though? Considering that we handle 8-bit strings specially already, there > >are not a ton of 8-bit constants with value >= 128. > > I'd rather that they not be

Hello Theo, > > > Could you let me know where this test patch would be available. > > > > Try: > > http://www.omniti.com/~jesus/SecurID/ > > > > -- Regarding your patch, did you continue the integration (mainly: Handle PIN creation and changing ...)? Do you foreseen to transport it in new release 2.3.0p1? Kind regards, Joel

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Eric Kidd wrote: > Hello! I'm compiling code which uses pointers as iterators. For some > reason--probably a silly misunderstanding of the docs--I can't eliminate > duplicate pointer loads. I'll probably figure this out eventually, but if > somebody else sees the answer instantly, I certainly won't complain. :-) There are no stupid questions.

Dear list, I''ve had this a few times now, and wonder if this is possible: I''m using a package, often for plotting something, but I want to tune the way the plotting goes, in a way that was not foreseen by the maker of the package. Now, most of the time, these kinds of R functions (say pkg::plot.something) call into other R functions (say pkg::plot.something.internal), and

Hello! I'm compiling code which uses pointers as iterators. For some reason--probably a silly misunderstanding of the docs--I can't eliminate duplicate pointer loads. I'll probably figure this out eventually, but if somebody else sees the answer instantly, I certainly won't complain. :-) Here are the optimizers I'm running: opt -f -simplifycfg -dce -instcombine

I'd like to set up a machine to dual-boot Ubuntu and CentOS5. Any problems foreseen with this? I'm mostly worried about disk labeling; they each need their own /boot and / filesystems. (Or do they need separate /boot partitions? Obviously there's an issue with boot.* and *.b and what System.map is symlink'd to, etc., but maybe there's a way to work around that.)

Hi, i have some code that allocate some memory, store the pointer to a variable, read it back and deallocates it, like this: int %main(int %argc, ubyte** %argv) { %c_19 = alloca ubyte* %malloc_206 = malloc ubyte, uint 10 store ubyte* %malloc_206, ubyte** %c_19 %tmp_207 = load ubyte** %c_19 free ubyte* %tmp_207 ret int 0 } i expected the optimized to remove everything, but after running it the