similar to: [LLVMdev] GSoC pre-proposal (instrumentation pass)

Hey guys, I am dealing with this kind of data. To read the file in R I have nulled all empty fields and tried: date BRENT BRENTchg HWWI HWWIchg Jan. 86 22,5 NULL 68,1 -15,6 Feb.86 17 NULL 64,9 -21,6 Mar. 86 13,7 NULL 66,6 -19,5 Apr.86 12,3 NULL 63,6 -19,1 May 86 14 NULL 61,5 -20,9 June 86 11,8 NULL 59,8 -20,7 July 86 9,4 NULL 57,2 -19,3 Aug.86 13,2 NULL 55,5 -18,3 Sep.86 14,2 NULL 57,5 -15,1

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Bug ID: 2573 Summary: dead sessions cannot be closed with ~. Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 3.7.1p2 Hardware: Other OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: ssh Assignee: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:50 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On 4/6/12 12:50 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > I'd like some similar work to be done, although I view it a bit > differently. > This might be a separate analysis pass that knows nothing about ASAN or > SAFECode > and appends metadata nodes to memory access instructions saying things

I'd like some similar work to be done, although I view it a bit differently. This might be a separate analysis pass that knows nothing about ASAN or SAFECode and appends metadata nodes to memory access instructions saying things like - this access can not go out of buffer bounds - this access can not touch free-ed memory - this access can not participate in a race - this read

This is a proposal to create memory safety instrumentation and optimization passes for LLVM. Abstract: The goal of this project is to modify SAFECode and AddressSanitizer (ASAN) to use a common set of memory safety instrumentation and optimization passes to increase code reuse. These tools and other similar ones use varying methods to detect whether memory accesses are safe, but are fundamentally

On 4/6/12 12:50 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > I'd like some similar work to be done, although I view it a bit > differently. > This might be a separate analysis pass that knows nothing about ASAN > or SAFECode > and appends metadata nodes to memory access instructions saying things > like This is a good idea but is the wrong way to implement the idea. LLVM passes are

On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Alex L" <arphaman at gmail.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "Anton Korobeynikov" <anton at korobeynikov.info>, "Bill Wendling" <isanbard at gmail.com>, "LLVM Developers

Greetings, (I am reposting this email of mine, as I was informed that emails from the domain 'iith.ac.in' are sometimes being marked as spam) I am Aradhya Biswas, final year student of Computer Science and Engineering at Indian Institute of technology Hyderabad (IITH), and as mentioned in my previous email on the LLVM dev mailing list, I am interested to work towards the improvement of

On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Tyler Hardin <tghardin1 at catamount.wcu.edu> wrote: > If this were a problem with an omitted statement involving a normal variable, I'd guess you're missing a volatile qualifier. I'm not 100% sure volatile is a valid qualifier for functions, but try it. Well, yes, if I change the signature to: void test(char * volatile x) It works, but

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dmitri Gribenko" <gribozavr at gmail.com> > To: "Alex L" <arphaman at gmail.com> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 9:00:51 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] GSoC project questions. > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Alex L <arphaman

On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Tyler Hardin <tghardin1 at catamount.wcu.edu> wrote: > I was suggesting to add it to the function, like > volatile void func(..); > Theoretically, this would tell the compiler not to omit seemingly superfluous calls to func. 'volatile' can't apply to a function, so I'm not sure what you mean. In your example, 'volatile' modifies

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your support. > I wrote my draft GSoC proposal, it can be viewed here - > https://gist.github.com/hyp/5434845 > Please read it and tell me what you think. Any criticisms or suggestions are > welcome! Hello Alex, > I plan to make flang a fully featured frontend which fully supports Fortran

So it turns out that I was wrong. It, in fact, is not standard. But regardless, you can use asm to specify the exact name. Eg. extern int func() asm("func"); You can read more here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1034852/adding-leading-underscores-to-assembly-symbols-with-gcc-on-win32 Despite the title of the thread, the solution is compiler and system independent. --------------

??? Usually phone companies set the outgoing CallerID for you but recently we got control over that and are now setting the outgoing Calleir ID ourselves.? My problem now is that the CDR will put the outgoing CID in the CDR instead of the extension that dialed and that causes problems for reports.? What is the proper way to set outgoing CID and keeping the original extension number in the

Although I'm sending this as a GSoC proposal, I'm well aware that the amount of work that a project of this kind involves largely exceeds the scope of the GSoC program. I think that's okay: my work here wouldn't be finished at the end of this summer by any means, it would merely be a start. TGSI is the intermediate representation that all open-source GPU drivers using the

You were correct the first time. That post is talking about a Windows target. Ashi is working on iOS. Underscores are normal and expected. Using an "asm" name on the symbol is a horrible hack. Adding the underscore to the name in the .s file is the correct solution. -Jim On Feb 20, 2013, at 12:04 AM, Tyler Hardin <tghardin1 at catamount.wcu.edu> wrote: > So it turns out that

I was suggesting to add it to the function, like volatile void func(..); Theoretically, this would tell the compiler not to omit seemingly superfluous calls to func. On Jun 4, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Tyler Hardin <tghardin1 at catamount.wcu.edu> wrote: > If this were a problem with an omitted statement involving a normal variable, I'd guess you're missing a volatile qualifier. I'm

On Jun 4, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Tyler Hardin <tghardin1 at catamount.wcu.edu> wrote: > I tried the "extern" specifier, which (I guess) you should use if the definition isn't in the file; and it worked with -O3. That 'extern' doesn't do anything - it's implicit. Did you try without it and get different results? In my test here with the Mac OS X dev tools

On 24 Jul 2013, at 08:47, Tyler Hardin <tghardin1 at catamount.wcu.edu> wrote: > Not much slower. VBox does an amazing job at getting near native performance on modern machines (those with nested paging etc.). This is definitely the best option if your computer has ~2g ram and 2+ cores. Give the Ubuntu VM 2g and 1 (maybe 2) core/s and it should be fine. I use VirtualBox (hosting a

I got the following compile error. Did the message-arrays.m can be compiled into .bc? Or need include something for Object C language compile. Jonathan 118-165-76-229:CodeGenObjC Jonathan$ pwd /Users/Jonathan/llvm/release/src/tools/clang/test/CodeGenObjC 118-165-76-229:CodeGenObjC Jonathan$ clang -emit-llvm -o 1.ll -c message-arrays.m message-arrays.m:5:3: warning: instance method