similar to: [LLVMdev] stack switching?

What is the best way to add song metadata (artist, album, title, etc.) to flac files? I want to be able to define an arbitrary number of FIELD=value pairs. Earlier I heard someone mention using id3 tags. I tried this with the command-line "id3v2", and while it seemed to work I noticed that the resulting file no longer began with "fLaC", which violates the format

Thanks for the quick response on the C++ thing. It would also be nice if the host program could correctly write the STREAMINFO block in the stream encoder metadata callback without having to know the specifics of the header format (or worry about endianness). How exactly to achieve this might take some thought, but what about this idea: 1. The correct way to respond to the metadata callback:

Hi Matt, thanks for the reply. * Matt Zimmerman (mdz@debian.org) wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 11:39:11PM -0800, Joshua Haberman wrote: > > > So I was wondering if flac could be incorporated into the filesystem > > driver so that any file ending in .wav would be transparently encoded > > into flac. I don't know if this could be done at the vfs level so that >

Hello FLACers, I'm working on implementing FLAC support for Audacity, a cross-platform audio editor (audacity.sourceforge.net). We're experimenting with using FLAC as the internal data representation. Unfortunately, the FLAC headers cannot be used in C++ programs because of the use of 'private' and 'protected' as variable names in stream_decoder.h, stream_encoder.h, and

Jeroen: Thank you for pointing me to ndjson, which I had not heard of and is exactly my case. My experience: jsonlite::stream_in - segfaults ndjson::stream_in - my fault, I am running Ubuntu 14.04 and it is too old so it won't compile the package corpus::read_ndjson - works!!! Of course it does a different simplification than jsonlite::fromJSON, so I have to change some code, but

Hi LLVM devs, I’d like to describe my problem, and then propose new features of LLVM which would solve it efficiently. I'm building a new statically-compiled programming language, and I plan on using LLVM as the backend. The language will have a runtime with cooperatively managed green threads (user-space "mini-threads", each with their own dynamically allocated stack). A single OS

Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 08:11:13PM +0100, Steve Lhomme wrote: > > > Well, I think going GPL would be too much, only GPL softwares could use > > the library. > > This is a common misconception, but entirely untrue. There are many > free software licenses, including the BSD-style licenses, which are > compatible with the

I'm not sure about the legacy JIT interface, but I don't think this can be done cleanly with the current MCJIT interface. I mentioned a while ago that this is one of the improvements we'd like to make to MCJIT. I can definitely see Josh's point about performance, and so we won't want permissions to always be set, but I do think it's worth revising the interface between

I'm kind of swamped today so I'll answer what I can get away with until tonight: --- Joshua Haberman <joshua@haberman.com> wrote: > The most interesting questions to me are ones you didn't address: > > 1. Will Ogg FLAC become the default manifestation of the FLAC codec? > If not, why not? What does Ogg not offer that makes it worth having > two different file

I am looking to losslessly archive a lot of music and share it over a network. The following stipulations lead me to an interesting conclusion: 1. Almost no programs can read or write flac files directly. 2. Almost all programs can read and write wav files directly. 3. The cost of encoding flac files is fairly low 4. The cost of decoding them is even lower 5. These files would be read much more

The main problem, as I see it, is that there's no way for the memory manager to know when it can safely change the protection state of sections apart from making assumptions about the implementation of MCJIT (namely that it will generate code on construction) and receiving some sort of notification outside the standard interface. I believe there's also no provision for handling read-only

I noticed that JITMemoryManager allocates its slabs as rwx. Isn't it a security problem to have memory mapped as both writable and executable? I think JITs often avoid this by mapping their memory as rw, then switching it to rx once the data has been written. I was facing a similar problem in a JIT of my own and was curious to see how LLVM addresses this issue. Thanks, Josh --------------

It's official: http://xiph.org/ogg/flac.html It's OK to keep submitting patches but I'm going to hold off on integrating anything until CVS is moved over. Note that codec code (libFLAC, libFLAC++, libOggFLAC, libOggFLAC++) will be covered under Xiph's BSD-like license from here on out. Josh __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus -

In the world of the MCJIT, memory allocation, including permissioning, is the responsibility of the client application. The MCJIT only directly touches memory in the address space of the host. Once the old JIT is removed, all of the allocations done by the included memory manager can become RW. lli's trivial memory manager will then have the RW->X transition for code sections. All of the

Have you considered trying to have FLAC become an official part of the Ogg project? Ogg has Vorbis but no lossless codec, and FLAC is already production quality. You've already written the code to wrap FLAC in an Ogg bitstream. Ogg Squish seems to be abandoned, and it would be a grand waste of effort to revive it when FLAC already works so well. The Ogg people would be much better off

--- Joshua Haberman <joshua@haberman.com> wrote: > 2. I was hoping that the new metadata API would mean that an encoder > could be written without having to know *anything* about the bitwise > layout of the stream format, but that seems not to be the case. From > src/flac/encode.c: > > ( void metadata_callback() ) > /* all this is based on intimate knowledge of the

Somewhat, yes. The MCJIT currently doesn't support lazy compilation in general, and things like notifications back (via the memory manager) when new sections have been produced and such needs to be part of that. Your'e right that, for now, the underlying assumption is that everything gets built up at once. The following is mostly stuff we've talked about before, but just to make sure

On Jul 17, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Josh Haberman wrote: > I noticed that JITMemoryManager allocates its slabs as rwx. Isn't it a security problem to have memory mapped as both writable and executable? I think JITs often avoid this by mapping their memory as rw, then switching it to rx once the data has been written. I was facing a similar problem in a JIT of my own and was curious to see how

When you talk about lazy compilation, it isn't clear to me if you mean the single compilation step that produces a loadable module being delayed until a function is requested or the full-blown, legacy-JIT style lazy compilation of individual functions within a module being JITed only when needed. If the latter, it isn't clear to me how that would be done within the MC model. That's a

It would be nice if there was an accessor function that would give you the length of an application block's data. As it stands, there's no way for an application to ensure that it doesn't read past the end of the data buffer, causing it to either segfault or get bad data. Josh