similar to: [LLVMdev] Bi-Endian Compiler

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Herbie Robinson <HerbieRobinson at verizon.net> wrote: > I have been quietly working on a port of LLVM to Stratus VOS. The OS is > always big endian (because customers need to migrate data to new hardware > quickly and can't afford to convert). This entails presenting a big endian > programming model no matter what the hardware does. We

I have been quietly working on a port of LLVM to Stratus VOS. The OS is always big endian (because customers need to migrate data to new hardware quickly and can't afford to convert). This entails presenting a big endian programming model no matter what the hardware does. We did this about 15 years ago with the Stratus compilers and GCC. We offered the GCC changes back to the

That's true for block ciphers, but ChaCha20+poly1305 is a stream cipher. On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, Robinson, Herbie wrote: > > I?m hardly an expert on this, but if I remember correctly, the rekey rate > for good security is mostly dependent on the cipher block size.? I left my > reference books at home; so, I can?t come up with a reference for you, but I > would take Chris?

I have a customer who is complaining about slow SFTP transfers over a long haul connection. The current transfer rate is limited by the TCP window size and the RTT. I looked at HPN-SSH, but that won't work because we don't control what software the peer is using. I was thinking about coding a much more modest enhancement that just does SO_RCVBUF for specific subsystems. In the interest

Hi Herbie, thanks for you answer and explanation. > > Also, if any of the functions are external, you are completely stuck (unless you put everything together with lld). I am indeed having a problem regarding external function. I my program is just one file everything work and I can access all the functions. However, if it has multiple files I have a lot of unresolved pointers to

I'm hardly an expert on this, but if I remember correctly, the rekey rate for good security is mostly dependent on the cipher block size. I left my reference books at home; so, I can't come up with a reference for you, but I would take Chris' "I'm deeply unsure of what impact that would have on the security of the cipher" comment seriously and switch to a cipher with a

Hello, I've some exceptions which I would like to solve to build LLVM+Clang from source on MacOSX 10.8+. " /Users/travis/build/vpmedia/crossbridge/llvm-2.9/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor.cpp:728:28: [0;1;31m error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'std::vector<BasicBlock *>' std::vector<BasicBlock*> Succs(succ_begin(codeReplacer), " I

Ah, with an internal block size [Is that what one calls it?] of 64 bytes. From: Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 3:08 PM To: Robinson, Herbie <Herbie.Robinson at stratus.com> Cc: Chris Rapier <rapier at psc.edu>; Christian Weisgerber <naddy at mips.inka.de>; openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: ChaCha20 Rekey

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, Chris Rapier wrote: > I was wondering if there was something specific to the internal chacha20 > cipher as opposed to OpenSSL implementation. > > I can't just change the block size because it breaks compatibility. I can do > something like as a hack (though it would probably be better to do it with the > compat function): > > if

Which performance guidelines are you referring to? I'm not that familiar with decade-old CPUs, but to the best of my knowledge, this is not true on current hardware. There is one specific circumstance where PUSHes should be avoided - for Atom/Silvermont processors, the memory form of PUSH is inefficient, so the register-freeing optimization below may not be profitable (see 14.3.3.6 and

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Herbie Robinson > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences > > On 12/21/14 4:27 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M wrote: > > Which performance guidelines are you referring to? > Table C-21 in "Intel(r) 64 and IA-32 Architectures

Our environment: samba4 (alpha12) running on centos 5.4. We are experimenting with Hyper-V 2008 R2 Failover Clustering, which requires Active Directory. We are trying to see if samba-4 will work as the AD server. We are trying to create 2 node failover cluster. Both nodes have joined the domain successfully (with samba-4 as the DC). But subsequent steps of creating the "Failover

Hi Justin , Thank you for the confirmation and we would like to know that ,going forward the clang has the support the gcc gcov format or use the -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping and get ride of gcov format . We are planing to customize the clang code coverage for embedded world ,before we start tweaking the gcov / -fprofile-instr-generate code-base ,we would like to take feedback

Hi All, We have populated info in the Clang Sema i.e class Sema (include/clang/Sema/Sema.h) and like to propagate the same to Clang Codegen . Currently we are propagating through ASTContext ,where we have duplicating fields info and operation in the Sema and ASTContext . Any better way of doing the same ? Thank you ~Umesh

Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com> writes: > Hi Justin , > > Thank you for the confirmation and we would like to know that ,going > forward the clang has the support the gcc gcov format or use the > -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping and get ride of gcov > format . Going forward, the -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping (which I'll refer to as

Hi All, We trying to use clang+llvm to generate the gcc coverage format as clang version 3.6.0 $clang --coverage -Xclang -coverage-cfg-checksum -Xclang -coverage-no-function-names-in-data -Xclang -coverage-version='407*' test.c $a.out $llvm-cov gcov test.gcda Unexpected version: *704. Invalid .gcno File! Debugging the above cause ,But any hints from experts here ,will help a lot

I have discovered that rsync 2.5.6 uses the mkstemp() routine wich do not have a 64bits version into the AIX libc. A very simple workaround to the big files writing rsync pb. is to not use this routine that create files w/ mkstemp() by modifying the "syscall.c" source file at line 154 as following : #if defined(HAVE_SECURE_MKSTEMP) && defined(HAVE_FCHMOD) become #if

(I'm not subscribed; Mail-Followup-To set.) Contrary to the claim in the output of ./configure --help, $CPPFLAGS is in fact not influential. --- rsync-2.5.5/Makefile.in~ 2002-03-24 23:36:34.000000000 -0500 +++ rsync-2.5.5/Makefile.in 2002-11-12 17:52:04.000000000 -0500 @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ LIBS=@LIBS@ CC=@CC@ CFLAGS=@CFLAGS@ +CPPFLAGS=@CPPFLAGS@ LDFLAGS=@LDFLAGS@

Dear Andrew and the Group, I’m trying come up with a SchedMachineModel for the AMD bulldozer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture). The model is not exist for the same .Please correct me if am i wrong here. I was going through your reference @ https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Target/TargetSchedule.td . But I couldn’t model some of the

Try using $PWD/test.cpp on the clang command line. I am seeing the duplicate DIFile entries, but not yet able to reproduce a .debug_line section with multiple directory entries. --paulr From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Tomar, Sourabh Singh via llvm-dev Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:07 PM To: Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com>; cfe-dev at