search for: _may_

...ause drop file extensions from their file names. At this time they will also act _almost_ as if they have lost MIME-type data which associates said files with the Application needed to launch them, preventing Document Activation/Launching (as it is variously called) from working correctly. The file _may_ open in the previously associated application, but will actually open correctly. According to Mac OS X Finder the files affected files (which where once various kinds of documents) are now of the kind 'Unix executable'. A few, lack any entry in 'Kind' but "opens with" will...

...amp;& HasAVX) return CSR_Win64_Intel_OCL_BI_AVX_RegMask; if (Is64Bit && HasAVX) return CSR_64_Intel_OCL_BI_AVX_RegMask; if (!HasAVX && !IsWin64 && Is64Bit) return CSR_64_Intel_OCL_BI_RegMask; // Missing break/return? } It _may_ be intentional - it falls through to the Cold calling convention and then general C convention, but it really looks suspicious. If it is intentional, please add an explicit note about the desired fall through behaviour. I found this by inserting a new case in the switch and having tests fail....

...nome entry that is made available to the various window managers fails. A window pops, and exists. As far as I can tell, the menuing system does not have a problem with shell script wrapper. Environment variables like PATH, DISPLAY etc should be set too. So the best idea I am having now is that R _may_ think that interactive() is FALSE when it should in fact be TRUE. Does anybody have a) other ideas, and fixes, or b) an idea how I could correct the menuing system? Dirk -- Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others....

Hi, Is there a way in Linux to do NAT with a pool of outside addresses such that each connection to the outside resource gets a different IP address?? I don''t want 1:1 NAT as I have some thousands of IP addresses on one side of the LARTC router that _may_ need to access a resource on the other side... The resource needs to see a different IP address for each active call, but these addresses can be reused after the call concludes.... Any clues?? TIA, Dave

...> > mark > > > > You don't say which version of the 340 series driver you have tried. > > There was a bug with recent legacy releases that affected el7.4 kernels. > We (elrepo) patched the driver to fix that on rhel7.4 releases. I'm not > sure but it _may_ have been fixed in the 340.104 driver released last > week - I've not bothered building it as the changelog only mentions > "Improved compatibility with recent Linux kernels" which we > patched/fixed in our the previous release and other issues which don't > affect kmo...

After upgrading to Ubuntu 16.10, which brings GCC 6, I've noticed that packages are compiled in C++14 mode by default. Here's what a g++ command for compiling one of Rcpp's modules look like on my system: g++ -I/usr/share/R/include -DNDEBUG -I../inst/include/ -fpic -g -O2 -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -g -c

Hi, For what it's worth, I've also both "not received" a some email and been getting a _lot_ (5-6 within last month) of messages recently asking for "reactivation due to excessive bounces" related to the llvm & cfe commits lists. Now this _may_ be an issue in the systems after it's left the cs.uiuc.edu mailer, but FWIW the people in charge of monitoring the mail delivery deny anything has been happening within our systems. At the moment I don't know where the problem is. So I'll just report this in case people with other mail...

...es, the TLS layer is enabled immediately on the connection. > > > Again, that's not what the documentation says: > > ??? ssl=yes [...]: SSL/TLS is offered to the client, but the client > ??? isn't required to use it. > > If the client is not _required_ to use it, it _may_ chose plaintext > transport, no? > > (I'm not here to argue, I'm just pointing out an issue with the wiki). Oh, I think we are talking about different things here. You're talking about the global ssl= setting. I am talking about the ssl = yes inside the service listener con...

I am trying to graph two planes on the same graph using persp(). I can only get one plane to plot at a time. Can someone explain how I can graph two planes on the same graph using persp? I've looked throught the documentation, but cannot find any references to appending a persp plot. Thanks. Sincerely yours, Mark J. Lamias Statistical Consultant

Since Fedora is pushing NSS SSL instead of OpenSSL, has someone tested tinc-vpn against NSS? As i recall, a single machine can not have OpenSSL and mod_nss installed at the same time anymore. So if you have apache running, you _may_ have problems running tinc? The nss api is supposed to mostly similar to openssl api, but there are some things openssl supports and somethings nss supports. Is this a issue?

Op 13/01/2019 om 00:22 schreef Dominik Menke: >> For reference: if you put ssl=yes there, the TLS layer is established >> immediately. However, the standard ManageSieve protocol does not >> support that (not currently anyway): only the establishment of the >> TLS layer using the STARTTLS command is part of the standard. That is >> why your clients fail to connect:

...TH_FLAG-1) ... unlock_again: val = xadd((&lock->ticket.head_tail, TICKET_LOCK_INC); if (unlikely(!(val & HEAD_MASK))) { /* overflow. we inadvertently incremented the tail word. * tail's lsb is TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG. * Increment inverted this bit, fix it up. * (inc _may_ have messed up tail counter too, * will deal with it after kick.) */ val ^= TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG; } if (unlikely(val & TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG)) { ...kick the waiting task... val -= TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG; if (unlikely(!(val & HEAD_MASK))) { /* overflow. we inadv...

...TH_FLAG-1) ... unlock_again: val = xadd((&lock->ticket.head_tail, TICKET_LOCK_INC); if (unlikely(!(val & HEAD_MASK))) { /* overflow. we inadvertently incremented the tail word. * tail's lsb is TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG. * Increment inverted this bit, fix it up. * (inc _may_ have messed up tail counter too, * will deal with it after kick.) */ val ^= TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG; } if (unlikely(val & TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG)) { ...kick the waiting task... val -= TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG; if (unlikely(!(val & HEAD_MASK))) { /* overflow. we inadv...

...ty ? In other words, Y in your > example is invalidated here. I don't think so because the control flow graph hasn't necessarily been updated. If the whole dominator information is recalculated when only Instructions are manipulated, that's rather wasteful. I'll allow that it _may_ be invalidated in the current implementation but there's no reason it _must_ be. I want to protect myself against future performance enhancements. :) -Dave

...py to help. I'll contact you off list to sort out the arrangements. I should warn you that it may be a wasted journey for you, as I really dont know if it will exhibit the problem. Tim. "Storer, Darren" <starusers@comgate.tv> wrote: __________ >Hi Tim, > >TP> So it _may_ not be a problem for me as NTL is a patchwork >TP> of smaller telcos, my area (Manchester) may be more up to >TP> date. >TP> Anyone know an easy way to tell what I've got ? >TP> (or will I have to ask NTL -aaaagh) > >"Pound to a penny" you have ISDN 85. I...

Hi, I just realized non of Patrik's commit mails has every reached llvm-commits. Neither my own archive nor the web interface contains commit messages for any of his commits. The relevant commits are 168785, 168516, 168507, 167924, 157381, 157323, 157320, 157319, 157184 Does anybody have any idea why those commit mails would get lost? Or did I just overlook something? Cheers Tobi

Hi, I setup a rather large POP3/IMAP configuration and want to use dovecot proxying feature. I have noted that the capability announce when connecting via the proxies are not the same before you are authenticated and after. Before you are authenticated the proxy announce is own capability and after it announce the final server capability. The problem is that some (most ? all ?) mail client ask

...;s rather wasteful. This is a question of how to update and maintain dom info. properly. The pass that is modifying instructions should update "number" appropriately in your scheme. Many loop passes goes through a length to maintain dominator info. > I'll allow that it > _may_ be invalidated in the current implementation well, I just realized that dom info is claimed as CFG pass so it is possible that some pass is not invalidating dom info while modifying BB instructions. IMO, this is a bug which should be fixed. - Devang > but there's no reason > it _mu...

Hey folks; I have been happily using shorewall for quite some time so this problem _may_ not be easy to resolve but I am interested in any information regarding your experience with the same setup. I was using FC3 with shorewall 2.2.3 and two NICs setup as a bridge without any issue until I upgraded to FC4. My production system would pass traffic through the bridge but local usage wou...

...her than the lag there have been no issues that have come up on a reasonably-managed satellite segment. However, the IP overhead really starts to cost significant amounts of pennies when you add it up on multiple SIP RTP sessions over the same link. Plus, packet contention and buffering may (_may_) be an issue when pushing multiple simultaneous streams out the same transponder. It would seem to me that IAX2 in trunk mode would be optimal for people on very expensive satellite bandwidth, as a G.729 9.6kbps channel starts to actually look like 9.6kbps instead of 24kbps. However, I have ha...