search for: 33590

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