Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "33590".
Did you mean:
  3359
  
2005 Sep 06
2
Yum thing
Hi,
As there is no (decent) way to specify a particular repo for an
particular package with yum, I'm having an odd problem: Although 
the version numbers differ, I have 2 spamassassin pkgs in different
repo's (updates and my own addons) which are seen as updates to 
eachother:
jelsum:/root-# tail -11 /var/log/yum.log
Sep 02 04:26:34 Installed: perl-Mail-SpamAssassin.i386 3.1.0-1
Sep 02
2011 Oct 23
4
[LLVMdev] Question regarding basic-block placement optimization
...-- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111023/8781c895/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mbp-redux.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 33590 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111023/8781c895/attachment.obj>
2011 Oct 22
0
[LLVMdev] Question regarding basic-block placement optimization
On Oct 20, 2011, at 11:53 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> 
> > A new patch is attached that is *much* less of a rough draft. Sorry for any confusion due to the early state of the patch.
> 
> Thanks, Chandler. This is great stuff.
>
2011 Oct 21
3
[LLVMdev] Question regarding basic-block placement optimization
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote:
>
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>
> > A new patch is attached that is *much* less of a rough draft. Sorry for
> any confusion due to the early state of the patch.
>
> Thanks, Chandler. This is great stuff.
>
> > Still, I never intended this to be