similar to: [LLVMdev] Clang not mentioned on web site?

> I think the problem is deeper than that, in that LLVM has no official > concept of a subtype, so I don't see how the idea of polymorphism > could be defined in it. Parametric polymorphism is different from subtype polymorphism; you can have one without the other. Parametric polymorphism just means that you can use type variables (like T) in the IR, which are later instantiated to

I'm a newcomer to llvm, but what you've done so far is very impressive. Llvm is a godsend to anybody who is attempting to implement their own their own language. :-) My company is considering using llvm as the backend for a small matlab-like language for scientific computation; our other option is MSIL. After reading through the documentation, I noticed that llvm seems to have one major

> I think many people were confused by this at first but an excellent counter > example was provided in a previous thread: C99 ABIs can require that struct > return values are returned via a pointer to a preallocated struct passed as > an auxiliary argument *except* when you're talking about a C99 complex, in > which case the return value is conveyed in a completely different

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:32, DeLesley SpamBox <delesley.spambox at googlemail.com> wrote: >> I think the problem is deeper than that, in that LLVM has no official >> concept of a subtype, so I don't see how the idea of polymorphism >> could be defined in it. > > Parametric polymorphism is different from subtype polymorphism; you > can have one without the

Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages would benefit from type variables in LLVM? I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:43 PM, DeLesley Hutchins <delesley.spambox at googlemail.com> wrote: >> I think many people were confused by this at first but an

> Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages > would benefit from type variables in LLVM? > I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with > instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. I'm surprised you're happy with a non-polymorphic llvm. Does Cayenne target llvm? Dependent types take polymorphism to new heights -- but

> It's done by the front-end. There are a variety of attributes and > mechanisms which are used to convolute data and marshall it through > call sites in an ABI-conformant manner. Oh dear. :-( Do the attributes change depending on the type? I would assume that attributes like "ccc" are type-invariant; i.e. every instantiation should use the C-calling convention, whatever

> I was thinking of the "T extends Comparable" part, which does involve > subtype polymorphism. Apologies if I'm getting terms mixed up. It was a bad example -- not close enough to actual LLVM. :-) > What do the parametrized types give you that you don't get from using > opaque instead of T? Possibly nothing. I don't really understand the limitations of

On 2009-02-18, at 14:53, DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > On 2009-02-18, at 08:06, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> Still, there are a large number of potential foibles here. For >> instance, passing an argument can require platform-specific >> contortions to conform to the platform ABI... > > Are those contortions done by the native code generator back-end, or > are

On Wednesday 18 February 2009 21:27:21 DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > Try implementing a generic complex number class in Java, and watch the > two-order-of-magnitude drop in performance on scientific code. Amen. I haven't proven it with a working HLVM yet but I believe LLVM will make it possible (even easy?) to generate extremely performant code from heavily abstracted high-level source.

On Wednesday 18 February 2009 23:36:27 DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > > Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages > > would benefit from type variables in LLVM? > > I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with > > instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. > > I'm surprised you're happy with a

> The same can be said of closures, garbage collection and a dozen other > features that also cannot feasibly be added to LLVM. > > The only logical solution is to build a HLVM on top of LLVM and share that > between these high-level language implementations. This is an excellent point. You have convinced me. :-) BTW, what garbage collector are you using for your HLVM? You

<!doctype html> <html> <head> <meta charset="UTF-8"> </head> <body> <div> Can you provide doveconf -n and try turning on mail_debug=yes on both ends and try doveadm -Dv expunge .... </div> <div> <br> </div> <div> Aki </div> <blockquote type="cite"> <div>

Thanks for the detailed response! :-) > This is by design. LLVM's type system is very low-level... Yes, and it should remain low-level. :-) > Expecting it to directly support generics seems a third-order-of- > magnitude leap of faith. :) But there is good news for the faithful? Let us distinguish between generics as found in java or .Net, and parametric polymorphism in general.

On Wednesday 18 February 2009 20:57:02 DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > > It's done by the front-end. There are a variety of attributes and > > mechanisms which are used to convolute data and marshall it through > > call sites in an ABI-conformant manner. > > Oh dear. :-( I think many people were confused by this at first but an excellent counter example was provided in a

I have a Fedora 5 server running Dovecot (currently 1.0 rc10). The spam filter (amavis) automatically tags email (using plussed addressing) such that messages flagged as spam are sorted into a "spambox" folder by procmail. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but because of some legacy issues with filesystem quota also being in place, combined with most users connecting with POP3

Guys, you can exclude me (dyatkovskiy) from this list, since I reverted my changes in r162354. -Stepan. llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder clang-native-mingw64-win7 while building cfe. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-mingw64-win7/builds/876 > > Buildbot URL:

This builder is taking too long to build. (The build stops because of a timeout.) Chip On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:29 AM, llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder clang-amd64-openbsd while building llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-amd64-openbsd/builds/1103 > > Buildbot URL:

> On 02 August 2018 at 16:08 Henrik Larsson <dovecot-user at spambox.dk> wrote: > > > On 15-07-2018 11:42, Henrik Larsson wrote: > > After upgrading Dovecot to 2.3.2.1 and Pigeonhole to 0.5.2, > > managesieve stopped working. > > > > I'm using FreeBSD ports tree, to build these. Only domains have been > > modified in below output. > >

Hello everybody, since now I did no replication and spam is delivered into users folder "spambox" Every night there is a cronjob which deletes spam older than 30 days via something like "find .... -ctime +30 -delete" Now I'm going to set up replication (two way) and I thought that doing "rm" is not a good idea. So I modified the job to something like