On 03/11/2010 10:31 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
>
> I needed to stop and start again, now I got this:
>
> FAIL: LLVM :: CodeGen/X86/bswap-inline-asm.ll (1340 of 2135)
> TEST 'LLVM :: CodeGen/X86/bswap-inline-asm.ll'
> FAILED
> Script:
> --
> llc <
> /usr/p
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
> 2010/3/11 Török Edwin :
>> On 03/11/2010 10:06 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
>>> 2010/3/11 Török Edwin :
On 03/11/2010 09:57 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
>> A FreeBSD user conta
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:26:07 -0500
"David F. Skoll" wrote:
> Tomasz Kojm wrote:
>
> > Due to security reasons all bytecodes need to be digitally signed,
> > so no 3rd parties will be able to inject any code into your installations.
>
> I believe this is the same security model used by Microsoft
2010/3/11 Török Edwin :
> On 03/11/2010 10:06 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
>> 2010/3/11 Török Edwin :
>>> On 03/11/2010 09:57 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
> A FreeBSD user contacted me reporting a problem building clamav
> under FreeBSD
On 03/11/2010 10:06 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
> 2010/3/11 Török Edwin :
>> On 03/11/2010 09:57 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
A FreeBSD user contacted me reporting a problem building clamav
under FreeBSD 9. I reproduced it locally, us
2010/3/11 Török Edwin :
> On 03/11/2010 09:57 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
>>> A FreeBSD user contacted me reporting a problem building clamav
>>> under FreeBSD 9. I reproduced it locally, using 20100308 snapshot:
>>>
>>> [--] 3 tests
On 03/11/2010 09:57 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
>> A FreeBSD user contacted me reporting a problem building clamav
>> under FreeBSD 9. I reproduced it locally, using 20100308 snapshot:
>>
>> [--] 3 tests from JITEventListenerTest
>> [
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Renato Botelho wrote:
> A FreeBSD user contacted me reporting a problem building clamav
> under FreeBSD 9. I reproduced it locally, using 20100308 snapshot:
>
> [--] 3 tests from JITEventListenerTest
> [ RUN ] JITEventListenerTest.Simple
> [ OK ]
A FreeBSD user contacted me reporting a problem building clamav
under FreeBSD 9. I reproduced it locally, using 20100308 snapshot:
[--] 3 tests from JITEventListenerTest
[ RUN ] JITEventListenerTest.Simple
[ OK ] JITEventListenerTest.Simple
[ RUN ] JITEventListenerTest.Mult
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> Due to security reasons all bytecodes need to be digitally signed,
> so no 3rd parties will be able to inject any code into your installations.
I believe this is the same security model used by Microsoft for Active X.
(NOTE: I am in no way implying that your bytecode interpre
On 2010-03-11 16:47, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Török Edwin wrote:
>
>> Right now the only detections one can write are pattern-based. You
>> can't write heuristic detections, you can't write unpackers, you
>> can't support new file formats, and you can't do more complex
>> analysis than pattern mat
Török Edwin wrote:
> Right now the only detections one can write are pattern-based. You
> can't write heuristic detections, you can't write unpackers, you
> can't support new file formats, and you can't do more complex
> analysis than pattern matching. The bytecode tries to offer the
> possibili
On 2010-03-11 15:44, Renato Botelho wrote:
>
> IIRC, you can use --enable-llvm=no at ./configure to disable.
>
That just disables the JIT, not the interpreter.
On 2010-03-11 16:26, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:29:16 + (GMT)
> "G.W. Haywood" wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> On Thu
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:29:16 + (GMT)
"G.W. Haywood" wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 David F. Skoll wrote:
>
> > I noticed the announcement of the bytecode interpreter in the 0.96-rc1
> > announcement.
> > ...
> > Why do we need the bytecode interpreter? Can we disable it if we d
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:29 AM, G.W. Haywood
wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 David F. Skoll wrote:
>
>> I noticed the announcement of the bytecode interpreter in the 0.96-rc1
>> announcement.
>> ...
>> Why do we need the bytecode interpreter? Can we disable it if we decide
>> the con
Hi there,
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 David F. Skoll wrote:
> I noticed the announcement of the bytecode interpreter in the 0.96-rc1
> announcement.
> ...
> Why do we need the bytecode interpreter? Can we disable it if we decide
> the cons outweigh the pros?
I was about to write something along these l
On 2010-03-10 22:54, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed the announcement of the bytecode interpreter in the 0.96-rc1
> announcement.
>
> That feature took me utterly by surprise.
>
> Could anyone provide a use-case for it?
Hi,
Right now the only detections one can write are pattern-base
17 matches
Mail list logo
