similar to: [LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> > To: "Peter Sewell" <Peter.Sewell at cl.cam.ac.uk> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 4:53:30 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] C as used/implemented in practice: analysis of responses > > > > All of these seem to fall into the pattern of

On 26 June 2015 at 22:53, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > All of these seem to fall into the pattern of "The compiler is required to > do what you expect, as long as it can't prove X about your program". That > is, the only reasonable compilation in the absence of inferring some extra > piece of information about your program, is the one you expect.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Peter Sewell <Peter.Sewell at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 30 June 2015 at 18:21, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> > >> To: "Peter Sewell" <Peter.Sewell at cl.cam.ac.uk> > >> Cc: llvmdev at

On 27 June 2015 at 17:01, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> On 2015 Jun 26, at 17:02, Peter Sewell <Peter.Sewell at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> On 26 June 2015 at 22:53, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com <mailto:chisophugis at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> All of these seem to fall into the pattern of "The compiler

On 1 July 2015 at 10:17, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 1 July 2015 at 03:53, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: >> Unfortunately in other cases it is very hard to communicate what the user >> should assert/why they should assert it, as Chris talks about in his blog >> posts. So it realistically becomes sort of black and white --

On 1 July 2015 at 13:29, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 1 July 2015 at 13:10, Peter Sewell <Peter.Sewell at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> while attractive from the compiler-writer point of view, is just not >> realistic, given the enormous body of C code out there which does >> depend on some particular properties which are not guaranteed by the

http://developer.kde.org/~sewardj/ Valgrind is a GPL'd tool to help you find memory-management problems in your programs. When a program is run under Valgrind's supervision, all reads and writes of memory are checked, and calls to malloc/new/free/delete are intercepted. As a result, Valgrind can detect problems such as: * Use of uninitialised memory * Reading/writing memory after

> So... Are 40 and 41 the only legal behaviors or are there more? Since the program invokes undefined behavior, anything goes. The compiler is perfectly within its rights to send a rude email to your department chair if you compile that code. John

I think when the real-time cbr encoding issues are sorted Vorbis (this is my experience with oddcast dsp, winamp and icecast 2 win32, big cpu hog) will start gaining more ground, also I think it will also gain more ground when it starts getting implemented into the more mainstream software and hardware products. For the most part vbr mp3 (btw, provide mp3's for downloads as vbr.. Better

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote: > I am arguing in favor of a point, and I understand you disagree with it, > but I don't think I'm dismissing any use cases except a very small > performance increment. > I'm sure Google has numbers about how much electricity/server cost they save for X% performance improvement.

Hi All, if memory serves me well I recall some paper comparing the relative success in getting mainstream acceptance (as mainstream as statistics can be) of both R and Octave. I remember vaguely that the fact the development strategies (core team vs one main developer) played a major role in the relative success of the two programs. I tried to find this paper, but my goggle skills are failing

switching or adding? Dave St John Mediacast1 Administration (720) 641-7586 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryan Payne" <speedwolf@door.net> To: <icecast@xiph.org> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [icecast] OT: OGG in the mainstream <p>> AAC + I believe is correct. > > Bryan > > > ---- Original Message ----- > From:

Thanks Andy, helpful as always! 1 is a possibility, but not ideal for us. Could you elaborate a little on 3? I don't really know what a jump stub is, but am guessing it's a kind of "alternative symbol" which would just act as a middle man to invoke the "real" symbol in the static library. If that's the case, I can think of a way to implement it for specific

Some time ago I posted here regarding a relocation overflow on Windows (among other things), but the issue disappeared and so the thread got left. I've started this new thread because a) I didn't want to necro the old one and b) it felt like its own. I've now encountered the issue again and am noting down all the information I can get about it whilst it's happening. The issues is

Hello all, Attached is the initial proposed implementation for ch.mapping 253/3, based on the IETF proposal: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics-03 A brief overview of the patch, as it is slightly lengthy: After discussion with Jean-Marc, we determined that ch.253/3 will need the demixing matrix as part of the encoder/decoder struct stack and thus will require a new

Hi, I've been wondering why LLVMs GEP instructions are based on types, rather than encoding the raw address calculation as a base pointer plus some scaled offsets (still in the form of a GEP, to retain provenance). The type information does not seem particularly useful (shouldn't be used as an optimization base, because struct layouts lie), but increases the non-canonical IR space (there

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 06:53:39PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > More in general, this lesson tells me that POSIX is effectively > irrelevant -- which is quite sad in itself; the bigger problem however > is that *nothing replaces it*. If the one formal standard we have for > portability does not reflect reality closely enough, and we need to rely > on personal experience with

Thanks for looking over this, Mark! I'm travelling this week but when I'm back I'll address all of your concerns and send,out another patch. :) On Jun 7, 2017 9:56 AM, "Mark Harris" <mark.hsj at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Drew Allen <bitllama at google.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > Attached is the initial

What does webm mean for the ogg container? Obviously it will still be around, but I was hoping to see native support for ogg vorbis in mainstream media players. Will there be an attempt to improve it and make it more attractive so that ogg (or maybe even an ogg2) is chosen as the container for VP9 or VP10 years down the road? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

>> I think that the improved behavior for consts should be acceptable in the large model. But that's just me. > By default, all constants should be in a special read-only section, and this section may be far from the text section. Why should they? The only reason I can think of is to support execute-only pages, but isn't that the less common use-case? From what I could tell from