Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "6c1".
Did you mean:
631
2006 Oct 31
2
Bridging Video Calls using Zap
...031 a11 831 871 ]
1 < Channel ID (len= 5) [ Ext: 1 IntID: Implicit, PRI Spare: 0,
Preferred Dchan: 0
1 < ChanSel: Reserved
1 < Ext: 1 Coding: 0 Number Specified Channel
Type: 3
1 < Ext: 1 Channel: 7 ]
1 < [1 6c1 0c1 211 831 311 371 351 351 381 361 341 371 381
311 ]
1 < Calling Number (len=14) [ Ext: 0 TON: National Number (2) NPI:
ISDN/Telephony Numbering Plan (E.164/E.163) (1)
1 < Presentation: Presentation allowed of
network provided number (3) '175586478...
2006 Feb 10
1
QSIG error -- can somebody explain?
...cuit-mode (16)
1 > Ext: 1 User information layer 1: A-Law (35)
1 > [1 181 011 891 ]
1 > Channel ID (len= 3) [ Ext: 1 IntID: Implicit, Other Spare: 0, Exclusive Dchan: 0
1 > ChanSel: B1 channel
1 ]
1 > [1 6c1 061 211 801 311 391 391 331 ]
1 > Calling Number (len= 8) [ Ext: 0 TON: National Number (2) NPI: ISDN/Telephony Numbering Plan (E.164/E.163) (1)
1 > Presentation: Presentation permitted, user number not screened (0) '1993' ]
1 > [1 701 0a1 c11...
2006 Mar 20
2
ISDN Protocol Unknom Error with Junghanns OctoBRI
...Info transfer
capability: Speech (0)
1 > Ext: 1 Trans mode/rate: 64kbps, circuit-mode (16)
1 > Ext: 1 User information layer 1: A-Law (35)
1 > [1 181 011 811 ]
1 > Channel ID (len= 3) [ Ext: 1 IntID: Implicit, Other Spare: 0,
Preferred Dchan: 0
1 > ChanSel: B1 channel
1 ]
1 > [1 6c1 051 411 801 341 301 301 ]
1 > Calling Number (len= 7) [ Ext: 0 TON: Subscriber Number (4) NPI:
ISDN/Telephony Numbering Plan (E.164/E.163) (1)
1 > Presentation: Presentation permitted, user number not screened (0)
'400' ]
1 > [1 701 051 c11 311 301 311 331 ]
1 > Called Number...
2007 Apr 30
0
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
...popa
> 6b7: 6c insb (%dx),%es:(%edi)
> 6b8: 69 61 73 5f 73 65 74 imul $0x7465735f,0x73(%ecx),%esp
> ...
>
> -000006c0 <__FUNCTION__.20111>:
> +000006c0 <__FUNCTION__.20026>:
> 6c0: 6f outsl %ds:(%esi),(%dx)
> 6c1: 62 6a 65 bound %ebp,0x65(%edx)
> 6c4: 63 74 73 5f arpl %si,0x5f(%ebx,%esi,2)
> 6c8: 6d insl (%dx),%es:(%edi)
> - 6c9: 75 73 jne 73e <__FUNCTION__.22568+0x56>
> - 6cb: 74 5f je 72c <__FUNC...
2007 Apr 27
2
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
The saga continues.
I've been tracking the interface changes and merging them with
the refactoring work I'm doing. I got as far as building stage3
of llvm-gcc but the object files from stage2 and stage3 differ:
warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
(Are the above two ok?)
The list below is clearly bad. I think it's every object file in
the