search for: 21184

...1 mach sshd2[2918]: debug3: monitor_read: checking request 24 #Jan 19 23:31:11 mach sshd2[2918]: fatal: monitor_read: unsupported request: 24 #Jan 19 23:31:11 mach sshd2[2918]: debug1: Calling cleanup 0x8054370(0x0) sshd2 LOG in case of Hostbased Auth. was set on it: #Jan 19 21:11:22 mach sshd2[21184]: debug2: userauth_hostbased: access allowed by auth_rhosts2 #Jan 19 21:11:22 mach sshd2[21184]: debug3: check_host_in_hostfile: #filename /etc/ssh/ssh_known_hosts #Jan 19 21:11:22 mach sshd2[21184]: debug3: check_host_in_hostfile: match line 6 #Jan 19 21:11:22 mach sshd2[21184]: debug2: check_k...

...n error so I looked at chan_unicall.c and saw something I thought I'd try then I changed it to: Dial(unicall/g4/<phone number>) which then brings up: WARNING[21155]: chan_unicall.c:3023 do_monitor: Unicall/94 Whoa.... I'm owned but found (11) in read [0x825e788, 0x825e788]... NOTICE[21184]: chan_unicall.c:2504 handle_uc_event: Unicall/94 event Dialing NOTICE[21184]: chan_unicall.c:2504 handle_uc_event: Unicall/94 event Protocol failure ERROR[21184]: chan_unicall.c:2508 handle_uc_event: Unicall/94 protocol error. Cause 32776 WARNING[21184]: app_dial.c:738 wait_for_answer: Unable to f...

...mate a 95% CI for a log odds coefficient is the following: log odds - 1.96*SE to log odds + 1.96*SE then I am not getting the right CI. For instance, this is a summary of my model: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) -0.06106 0.29808 -0.205 0.8377 pSusSD 0.21184 0.36886 0.574 0.5658 pBenSD 1.20255 0.52271 2.301 0.0214 * pBarSD -0.08654 0.48749 -0.178 0.8591 pSevSD 0.99759 0.44795 2.227 0.0259 * And this is are the corresponding CI when I call the confint function: 2.5 % 97.5 % (Intercept) -0....

...x i2>) http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20012 (error when storing <2 x i4>) http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19797 (assert failure on multiplication of i192) http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20921 (assert failure on stores and loads of i193) http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21184 (miscompilation of wider-than-legal types) I would *really* wish that the documentation made sure to mention, that wider-than-legal types are not expected to work. - Jaak

...calhost*CLI> [Sep 29 20:02:32] DEBUG[21183]: chan_iax2.c:9726 socket_process: Packet arrived out of order (expecting 3, got 2) (frametype = 6, subclass = 12) localhost*CLI> [Sep 29 20:02:32] DEBUG[21183]: chan_iax2.c:9733 socket_process: Acking anyway localhost*CLI> [Sep 29 20:02:34] DEBUG[21184]: chan_iax2.c:10261 socket_process: Immediately destroying 3477, having received hangup localhost*CLI> [Sep 29 20:02:34] DEBUG[5752]: channel.c:1760 ast_hangup: Hanging up channel 'IAX2/8366-8884' [Sep 29 20:02:34] DEBUG[5752]: chan_iax2.c:4978 iax2_hangup: We're hanging up IAX2/8366...

...2f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21127 8097632f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21128 8097632f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21141 8097632f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21142 8097632f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21168 8097632f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21175 8097632f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21180 8097632f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21184 8097632f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21186 8097632f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21188 8097632f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21195 8097632f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21196 8097632f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21198 8097632f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21292 8097632f69627b5b58950000bbe98eac 21312 8097632f69627b5b58950000bb...

Hi everyone! Here, I have a question and am curious about i128. I want to know how the LLVM handle i128, because many compiler backend doesn't support i128 directly. So I am very curious and want to how the llvm handle this situation? Besides i128, such as i256, i512, even i24? Thanks. Best Regards Wu Zhao -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I''m a rails newbie trying to develop a blog application with rails. I''ve some troubles to find the best way of automaticly set a field value on update and creation of a blog item. In fact my problem is very simple. I''ve a blog table with two column named create_date an mod_date. And I''d like : 1 - that

...#7 (32250, counted=10428). Fix? no Free blocks count wrong for group #8 (32253, counted=11170). Fix? no Free blocks count wrong for group #9 (32250, counted=4239). Fix? no Free blocks count wrong for group #10 (32253, counted=24482). Fix? no Free blocks count wrong for group #11 (32253, counted=21184). Fix? no Free blocks count wrong for group #12 (32253, counted=25657). Fix? no Free blocks count wrong for group #13 (32253, counted=13674). Fix? no Free blocks count wrong for group #14 (32253, counted=15007). Fix? no Free blocks count wrong for group #15 (32253, counted=11366). Fix? no [ re...

On 15/04/2019 01:39, Larry Rosenman via dovecot wrote: > > full solr.log at: > https://www.lerctr.org/~ler/solr.log > > The search DOES make it to SOLR: > ?77% [ler at thebighonker.lerctr.org:~] 130 $ grep sysutils > /var/log/solr/solr.log > 2019-04-14 18:31:34.749 INFO? (qtp349420578-7538) [? ?x:dovecot] > o.a.s.c.S.Request [dovecot]? webapp=/solr path=/select >

Dear all, I had a R segmentation fault, and then invoked debug mode and ran step by step. When I reached "terms(Y~X1*X2*...*X16)", I would then have "segmentation" fault. However, if I just ran this under regular "R interactive" mode, it would be fine though taking long time. My questions are: 1. Is there a known limit of terms for a formula? 2. Why does the

Dear all, I had a R segmentation fault, and then invoked debug mode and ran step by step. When I reached "terms(Y~X1*X2*...*X16)", I would then have "segmentation" fault. However, if I just ran this under regular "R interactive" mode, it would be fine though taking long time. My questions are: 1. Is there a known limit of terms for a formula? 2. Why does the