On 1/7/13 7:08 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 03:42:01PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 1/7/13 1:22 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
Below is the forward of the patch for which I failed to obtain a private
review. Might be, the list generates more responses.
Very cool.
On 2013/01/08 02:22, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
Below is the forward of the patch for which I failed to obtain a private
review. Might be, the list generates more responses.
Our rtld has a performance bootleneck, typically exposed by the images
with the lot of the run-time relocation processing,
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 03:42:01PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> On 1/7/13 1:22 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > Below is the forward of the patch for which I failed to obtain a private
> > review. Might be, the list generates more responses.
> Very cool.
>
> Sorry for being rusty here, but i
On 1/7/13 1:22 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
Below is the forward of the patch for which I failed to obtain a private
review. Might be, the list generates more responses.
Very cool.
Sorry for being rusty here, but is it safe to call fuword in the middle
of issignal()?
The reason I ask is be
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 12:18:41PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 1/7/13 10:22 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > Below is the forward of the patch for which I failed to obtain a private
> > review. Might be, the list generates more responses.
> >
> > Our rtld has a performance bootleneck, typi
On 1/7/13 10:22 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
Below is the forward of the patch for which I failed to obtain a private
review. Might be, the list generates more responses.
Our rtld has a performance bootleneck, typically exposed by the images
with the lot of the run-time relocation processing,
Below is the forward of the patch for which I failed to obtain a private
review. Might be, the list generates more responses.
Our rtld has a performance bootleneck, typically exposed by the images
with the lot of the run-time relocation processing, and by the C++
exception handling. We block the s
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:36:38AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday, January 06, 2013 01:02:21 PM Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> > Having LLVM/clang in the base system lets us do some interesting things
> > that we couldn't do with GCC. One is that LLVM ships with a JIT for LLVM
> > IR as well as
On 01/07/13 08:25, David Naylor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just my 2c
>
> On Sunday, 6 January 2013 20:02:21 Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>> Having LLVM/clang in the base system lets us do some interesting things
>> that we couldn't do with GCC. One is that LLVM ships with a JIT for LLVM
>> IR as well as compon
Hi,
Just my 2c
On Sunday, 6 January 2013 20:02:21 Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> Having LLVM/clang in the base system lets us do some interesting things
> that we couldn't do with GCC. One is that LLVM ships with a JIT for LLVM
> IR as well as components of a toolchain for it (this is what Google's
>
On Sunday, January 06, 2013 01:02:21 PM Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> Having LLVM/clang in the base system lets us do some interesting things
> that we couldn't do with GCC. One is that LLVM ships with a JIT for LLVM
> IR as well as components of a toolchain for it (this is what Google's
> pNACL uses)
On 1/6/13 10:02 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
Having LLVM/clang in the base system lets us do some interesting things
that we couldn't do with GCC. One is that LLVM ships with a JIT for LLVM
IR as well as components of a toolchain for it (this is what Google's
pNACL uses) and that you can end up pr
12 matches
Mail list logo
