search for: issam

Hello I have an E1 connection with 32 channels. To access to our IVR, you use 8898 phone number or 8899. If you call the 8898 you listen to the first application If you call the 8899 you listen to the second application How can I configure asterisk to do this Thank you issam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20060423/6ae2fbc1/attachment.htm

...rver is a hp ML370 3,2 Ghz 64bits, 1Mo L2 , 1Go Ram, 3 SCSI 73Go in raid5. I want to use in the same machine the kannel SMSC. i have no big trafic in the two gateway but I want to know if it generate a performence problem for asterisk I use fedora core4 with latest asterisk version . thanks Regards issam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20060629/651e2d0d/attachment.htm

...declarations. If I have two instructions like those: %1 = tail call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr ([16 x i8]* @.str, i32 0, i32 0), i32 %0) nounwind %10 = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr ([11 x i8]* @.str2, i32 0, i32 0), i32 5) nounwind Instruction::isSameOperationAs() returns false for those two. Is it a bug or I misunderstood something? In any case I wrote my custom isSame() operator for this but I'll appreciate any hints. Thanks! Artur

Is there any kind of Configuration guide available? I've been trying to get a SIP Soft phone to work and all I get is: NOTICE[81926]: File chan_sip.c Line 4716 handle_request): Registration from '<sip:xxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx> failed for 'yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy' I know I'm missing something in the configuration. But don't know much about * yet. Thanks, Kyle --------------

Hi, Artur > %1 = tail call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr ([16 x > i8]* @.str, i32 0, i32 0), i32 %0) nounwind > %10 = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr ([11 x i8]* > @.str2, i32 0, i32 0), i32 5) nounwind > > Instruction::isSameOperationAs() returns false for those two. Is it a > bug or I misunderstood something? These are two different instructions as you might see, thus - no bug :) > In any case I wrote my custom isSame() operator for this but I'll > appreciate any hints. Why do you need this? Won't be...

We are using AAH with Asterisk 1.2.7.1 with a TE405P as listed below. We are getting frequent restarts on the spans which lead to dropped calls. I have pasted some hopefully pertinent information below -- anyone have any clues that might help? Thanks Next line is repeated throughout messages, going through every channel in every connected span. asterisk/full.1:Apr 24 01:15:25 VERBOSE[4196]

...Ctor>> > > getNodeConstructorType(ASTNodeKind targetType) { > > auto const &ctors = RegistryData->nodeConstructors(); > > auto it = llvm::find_if( > > ctors, [targetType](const NodeConstructorMap::value_type &ctor) { > > return ctor.first.isSame(targetType); > > }); > > if (it == ctors.end()) > > return llvm::None; > > return it->second; > > } > > > > is acceptable. The `auto it` is already acceptable, but the `auto const& > ctors` depends on an interpretation of the guideline...

...ional<std::pair<std::string, MatcherCtor>> getNodeConstructorType(ASTNodeKind targetType) { auto const &ctors = RegistryData->nodeConstructors(); auto it = llvm::find_if( ctors, [targetType](const NodeConstructorMap::value_type &ctor) { return ctor.first.isSame(targetType); }); if (it == ctors.end()) return llvm::None; return it->second; } is acceptable. The `auto it` is already acceptable, but the `auto const& ctors` depends on an interpretation of the guideline and was rejected in the review I submitted. In that code, we on...

...ee above. > + //We want each signature just once > + std::vector<Instruction*>::iterator ins = > + std::lower_bound(ivec.begin(), ivec.end(), instr, > + CompareInstructions); > + if(ins!=ivec.end() && instr->isSameOperationAs(*ins)) > continue; Likewise. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

Hi, Could somebody help me this SIP trasport? I'm receiving SIP "invite" with CLI of calling party from the SIP gateway, aster that my IVR has to answer the call. sip.conf: ========= [general] port = 5060 bindaddr = 0.0.0.0 context = incomingsip videosupport=yes ; Turn on support for SIP video disallow=all ; Disallow all codecs allow=g729

...on > %1 = tail call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr ([16 x > > i8]* @.str, i32 0, i32 0), i32 %0) nounwind > > %10 = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr ([11 x i8]* > > @.str2, i32 0, i32 0), i32 5) nounwind > > > > Instruction::isSameOperationAs() returns false for those two. Is it a > > bug or I misunderstood something? > These are two different instructions as you might see, thus - no bug :) OK, I just need the same signature for both of those instructions. > > > In any case I wrote my custom isSame() op...

Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hi, Artur > > >> I'm working on that backend now, so probably I'll send some more patches >> soon. I'd be grateful if you could give me some suggestions how to add >> some test for that backend to the test-suite. On Linux the output code >> could be run on Mono and compared with outputs for other backends but >>

On Dec 16, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Stephen Kelly via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 25/11/2018 14:43, Stephen Kelly via llvm-dev wrote: >> However this is a proposal for more modern thinking regarding the permissiveness of auto in LLVM codebases. >> Currently the rule on the use of auto is here: > > Hi, > > Thanks for the input on this topic,

Author: safa Repository: /hg/zfs-crypto/gate Revision: cb5796192d9a28f3c066ef23d63e7b5b099b66cf Log message: 6231012 mpt driver returns negative disk ids for raid volumes under some conditions Files: update: usr/src/cmd/raidctl/raidctl.c