Re: [GSOC] few question about Bypass assembler when generating LTO object files

Hi, On Tue, Apr 04 2023, Rishi Raj wrote: > Thanks, Jan for the Reply! I have completed a draft proposal for this > project. I will appreciate your's, Martin's, or anybody else feedback on > the same. > Here is the link to my proposal > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r9kzsU96kOYfIhWZx62jx4ALG

Re: [GSOC] few question about Bypass assembler when generating LTO object files

Hello, > Thanks, Jan for the Reply! I have completed a draft proposal for this > project. I will appreciate your's, Martin's, or anybody else feedback on > the same. > Here is the link to my proposal > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r9kzsU96kOYfIhWZx62jx4ALG-J_aJs5U0sDpwFUtts/edit?usp=sharing

ARMv7 doubleword atomicity

*sending this email again, now in plain text Hi Will, I'm working at Huawei on verification of atomic primitives. I thought it would be appropriate to write to you because you're mentioned in several papers on ARM concurrency (https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/papers/topics.html), gcc patches an

Re: [GSOC] few question about Bypass assembler when generating LTO object files

Thanks to Martin, Honza, and Théo for your feedback. I have incorporated almost all of it, updated my proposal accordingly, and submitted it. Regarding grammar errors, I have fixed many, but there may still be some left (I could be better at grammar, to be honest :( ). On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 15:55,

Linker removal of trampolines on Microsoft Windows targets

Hi all, Microsoft's Visual C++ compiler has the ability to remove trampolines generated by the linker (which ultimately calls __imp_SymbolName from the DLL import address table) when linking with code that is intended to be loaded from a DLL if link time optimization on their compiler was specifie

Re: [GSOC] few question about Bypass assembler when generating LTO object files

> Thanks to Martin, Honza, and Théo for your feedback. I have incorporated > almost all of it, updated my proposal accordingly, and submitted it. > Regarding grammar errors, I have fixed many, but there may still be some > left (I could be better at grammar, to be honest :( ). I could be better to

Re: Re: GSoC: want to take part in `Extend the static analysis pass for CPython Extension`

Thanks Martin! Sounds good; I submitted my proposal unchanged for now (i.e assuming an independent project), but as Dave mentioned in another thread, it may be divided into several logical components, perhaps with certain features extended, to be suited for collaboration. Best, Eric On Mon, A

Re: [PATCH] sockaddr.3type: Document that sockaddr_storage is the API to be used

Hi Eric, I'm going to reply both your emails here so that GCC is CCed, and they can suggest better stuff. I'm worried about sending something to POSIX without enough eyes checking it. So this will be a long email. On 3/30/23 20:36, eblake wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 06:25:30PM +0200, Alej