RE : Cfuture Manpower Hiring
Hi, I trust this email finds you well. Our Organization hiring the best and the brightest talent in the industry. We hire individuals with a strong sense of pride in their performance, team spirit, and a desire to excel. To provide our clients with Professional, Quality and value added services ensuring customer delight, thus building a long term relationship rather than short term gains. Why you have to prefer us; *TAT duration- Just 24 hours *Deadline to close the position is one week(depends upon Client procedure) *Availability - 6 days in a week, all available on call round the clock. *Sources Access to the database from beginner to top management level Or service charges are as below; A) The professional fee will be calculated as a percentage of the incumbent's gross annual salary @ 8.33% on annual CTC which excludes GST. B) Payment should be made within 30 days from the date of submission of invoice C) Replacement of candidate who leave the organization within 90 days of joining Thanks in advance. Assuring you the best of our efforts to begin a new relationship. Would request you to revert with your confirmation which enables us to start the recruitment process. We look forward to receiving your detailed job inquiry with specifications and other parameters to enable us to submit our suitable and competitive profiles. Kind Regards, Vinod Thomas Bangalore If you do not wish to receive future emails from us, please reply as "opt-out"
Re: School Districts Contacts 2023
Hi there, We are excited to offer you a comprehensive email list of school districts that includes key contact information such as phone numbers, email addresses, mailing addresses, company revenue, size, and web addresses. Our databases also cover related industries such as: * K-12 schools * Universities * Vocational schools and training programs * Performing arts schools * Fitness centers and gyms * Child care services and providers * Educational publishers and suppliers If you're interested, we would be happy to provide you with relevant counts and a test file based on your specific requirements. Thank you for your time and consideration, and please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Best regards, Natalie Harper To remove from this mailing reply with the subject line " LEAVE US".
Re: GCC 13.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
I bootstrapped and tested it on powerpc64 power 8 and 9 big endian and power 8, 9, and 10 little endian and all went well. On 7/20/23 5:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: The first release candidate for GCC 13.2 is available from https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13.2.0-RC-20230720/ ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13.2.0-RC-20230720/ and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit r13-7597-g9aac37ab8a7b91. I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on x86_64-linux. Please test it and report any issues to bugzilla. If all goes well, we'd like to release 13.2 on Thursday, July 27th.
Re: Warning specifically for a returning noreturn
I see. I think it may be appropriate to adopt what clang has done and have one -Winvalid-noreturn for both cases, thoughts? On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:43 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 at 04:28, Julian Waters via Gcc > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I've found the places responsible for the warnings, but before I do > > anything I'd like to discuss a couple of things. > > > > 1. What would a good name for the warning switch be? How does > > -Wreturning-noreturn sound? > > 2. I've thought about this for a while, and I feel like throwing a > warning > > for a noreturn method that isn't explicitly noreturn in the Control Flow > > Graph is a little too harsh. The point of the attribute is to hint to gcc > > that the method will never return even if it appears so, > > Is it? My understanding is that it's for functions the compiler can't > see the body of, e.g. user-defined functions similar to abort(). A > function that doesn't return "even if it appears so" implies the > function body is visible to the compiler. I don't think that's the > primary use case. The compiler is already perfectly capable of > optimizing callers appropriately if the function clearly never > returns, you don't need the attribute for those cases. > > > and requiring that > > the body explicitly do something like call abort() or loop infinitely > kind > > of defeats the purpose of the attribute, in my opinion > > I disagree, because the attribute is for the benefit of the calling > code, not the function body itself. And so it still serves that > purpose whatever the body of the function looks like. > > If you've added the attribute, so that calling code can be optimized > accordingly, but then the body actually does return ... what are you > playing it? That's weird and certainly deserves a warning. The calling > code might not work correctly if the function does return, because > it's been optimized assumed that can never happen, so you cause the > program to have undefined behaviour by returning from a noreturn > function. That certainly deserves a warning. > > The attribute's primary purpose is to inform callers the function > won't return. A side effect of that is that the function itself might > generate warnings if it appears to violate the contract you've made > (that it won't return). To avoid those warnings, you need to write the > function body so that it doesn't return. So instead of allowing the > function to return, call another noreturn function (like abort), or > add a __builtin_unreachable (or call std::unreachable in C++23), or > throw an exception. > > > 3. > If (2) is just me missing something, should I split the warning into 2 > > different warnings for a noreturn definition with an explicit return > > statement and an implicit one in the case of a method not explicitly > > throwing/looping infinitely, etc? > > I'm not sure it's worth it, as they're closely related. Although I > suppose you could have a noreturn function that must have a non-void > return type in order to conform to some expected API (e.g. a virtual > function, or a function who's address is taken and used as a > callback), so want to disable the warning about a non-void return, but > still get warnings for the function body to help you ensure it really > doesn't return by mistake. >
Update and Questions on CPython Extension Module -fanalyzer plugin development
Hi all,
I would like to update everyone on the progress of the static analyzer
plugin for CPython extension module code. Since the last update, I
have implemented known function subclasses for PyList_New and
PyList_Append. The existing known function subclasses have also been
enhanced to provide more information. For instance, we are now
simulating object type specific fields in addition to just ob_refcnt
and ob_type, which are shared by all PyObjects.
Regarding reference count checking, I have implemented a naive
traversal of the store to count the actual reference count of
PyObjects, allowing us to compare it against the ob_refcnt fields of
the same PyObjects. Although we can compare the actual reference count
and the ob_refcnt field, I am still working on implementing a
diagnostic to alert about this issue.
In addition to the progress update, I have some implementation related
questions and would appreciate any input. The current moment at which
we run the algorithm for reference count checking, and thereby also
the moment at which we may want to issue
impl_region_model_context::warn, is within region_model::pop_frame.
However, it appears that m_stmt and m_stmt_finder are NULL at the time
of region_model::pop_frame, which results in the diagnostic for the
reference count getting rejected. I am having trouble finding a
workaround for this issue, so any ideas would be welcome.
I am also currently examining some issues related to state merging.
Let's consider the following example which lacks error checking:
PyObject* foo() {
PyObject item = PyLong_FromLong(10);
PyObject list = PyList_New(5);
return list;
}
The states for when PyLong_FromLong fails and when PyLong_FromLong
succeeds are merged before the call to PyObject* list = PyList_New(5).
I suspect this may be related to me not correctly handling behavior
that arises due to the analyzer deterministically selecting the IDs
for heap allocations. Since there is a heap allocation for PyList_New
following PyLong_FromLong, the success and fail cases for
PyLong_FromLong are merged. I believe this is so that in the scenario
where PyLong_FromLong fails and PyList_New succeeds, the ID for the
region allocated for PyList_New wouldn't be the same as the
PyLong_FromLong success case. Whatever the cause, due to this state
merge, the heap allocated region representing PyObject *item has all
its fields set to UNKNOWN, making it impossible to perform the
reference count checking functionality. I attempted to fix this by
wrapping the svalue representing PyLongObject with
get_or_create_unmergeable, but it didn't seem to help. However, this
issue doesn't occur in all situations. For instance:
PyObject* foo() {
PyObject item = PyLong_FromLong(10);
PyObject list = PyList_New(5);
PyList_Append(list, item);
return list;
}
The above scenario is simulated as expected. I will continue to search
for a solution, but any suggestions would be highly appreciated. Thank
you!
Best,
Eric
