search for: 20150701

...mmediate '16' does not work here and I tried different ways. May I know if any of you have any idea how to bake an immediate value (16) into the tablegen? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150701/3499b5d5/attachment.html>

> But having programs miscompiled so that they silently fail, in many cases > starting only years after the code in question was written, is very much not > okay. That's far worse than documented portability problems. When given a certain spin... Tim.

Howdy, I built an LXC container with an "image" of asterisk 11.18 precompiled and installed. It runs fine on the dev platform, which is a Dell R320 running Ubuntu 14.04LTS. I shutdown the container, tarred it up, and untarred on a Dell PE1850, also running Ubuntu 14.04LTS. The container itself is Ubuntu 14.04LTS. Both platforms as far as I know are amd64. The container boots

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Since I haven't been following the thread closely, is there an updated > summary of the original proposal available? I know that various parts I > had concerns with (the unsplitable blocks for instance) got addressed, but > I'm having trouble tracking all the changes in discussion.

Hi all, Does anyone know of a good solution to the following? I'm trying to find a good way to stably associate distinct ID numbers with different BB in a module. As long as the module's IR hasn't changed in any way whatsoever, I'd like to be guaranteed to always generate the same ID <--> BB mapping. Or if the mapping is ambiguous, because two or more mappings between

Hi, I have target specific intrinsics (X86 in my case) with special constant parameters. Rounding mode constant, or scale value in gather/scatter. The scale, for example, may be 0, 1, 2, 4, or 8 only. How do I verify the values on IR level ? I'm looking at Verifier::visitIntrinsicFunctionCall() but I see only common intrinsics here, not target specific. Thank you. - Elena

...686+PAE Xorg 1.17.2 libdrm-2.4.61-3.fc22.i686 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/nouveau/attachments/20150701/5e3673b9/attachment.html>

On 1 July 2015 at 11:34, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote: > Why do you say spin? You're dismissing all use-cases other than this very narrow one I'd (with my own spin) characterise as "Do What I Mean, I Can't Be Bothered To Get My Code Right". Fair enough, you're arguing in favour of a point; but it's not one I agree with. Tim.

...___ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150701/90e5e463/attachment.html>

Hi Sanjoy, thanks for your thoughts on this. On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com > wrote: > > First of all, going by the "poison causes UB only when observed", SCEV > does not do the right thing currently: [...] > > That seems like a bug? There's also bug 23527 for GEP. Sounds like there might be more such bugs. One

I’m trying to debug SAFECode source code files, and I need to find a way to obtain a GlobalVariable from its appropriate MDNode. How can I do this? I’ve been looking over the doxygen and I can’t seem to find a way to do this. Thanks, Peter Finn

I see in my log file this: Jun 30 21:44:26] NOTICE[42192][C-000002f3] chan_sip.c: Call from '' ( 5.189.144.120:5076) to extension '011972592675431' rejected because extension not found in context 'default'. which is great its rejected - however in my sip.conf file I have deny=0.0.0.0 permit=x.y.z.z/255.255.255.255 permit=a.b.c.d/255.255.255.255 So I'm expecting to

...I am going to keep trying several things and if I get a break through, I'll definitely share the results. For no, any more help is welcome. thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20150701/28854307/attachment.html>

...I understand it is because of existing expire value but would like the previous expire timer to reset and issue a new registration instead Regards, Mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20150701/45095d83/attachment.html>

...Davis Drive NW ? Huntsville, AL 35806 ? US direct/fax: +1 256 428 6239 ? mobile: +1 256 580 6090 Check us out at: http://digium.com ? http://asterisk.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20150701/91b839cd/attachment.html>

...Bash scripter and a Python Fabric lover. If there's anything I can help you guys with, just holla at me @ Freenode or drop an e-mail :) Cheers, Danilo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/attachments/20150701/befca9ca/attachment.html>

Hi! Did anyone encountered problems with nfs after the latest updates? I started to have problems like nfsvers=3 no longer working in fstab or messages like : RPC: Program not registered Thanks! Adrian

...Huynh http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBEFA581B -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20150701/2b91b243/attachment.sig>

On 1 July 2015 at 17:15, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm proposing that LLVM unilaterally replace most undefined behaviour with > implementation-defined behaviour. That's precisely the problem. Which behaviour? Let's have an example: struct Foo { long a[95]; char b[4]; double c[2]; }; void fuzz(Foo &F) { for (int i=0; i<100;

> 1. The performance gain from this on real programs is small. I will suggest > that the total performance gain from optimisations that rely on exploiting > undefined behaviour - let's call them monkey's paw optimisations for short - > is practically never more than a few percent, and often less than one > percent. > > 2. For most programs, having the program work is