search for: _single_

...k this is really crucial because without it all the efforts to output JSON from ActiveRecord objects would have been half in vain, is to allow us to do this in controllers: @authors = Author.find(:all) render :json => @authors.to_json(:only => :name) Currently you can only to_json on a _single_ AR::B instance, but not for lists of them. I''ve a patch at http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/9751 that does this but needs verification and probably more input. The other change, while not as serious, is to get an unambiguous Time, Date and DateTime #to_json format, i.e. to get dates enco...

Hi Tanya, The new type-legalization mode (-promote-elements) which enables vector-select in LLVM (and a nice perf boost for several workloads), is currently disabled because of a _single_ bug in the ARM codegen which makes a few tests fail. If ARM is not a supported target, can I mark these tests as 'XFAIL' and enable vector-select support in LLVM ? Thanks, Nadav -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Be...

Hi, we are using a _single_ LDAP server as backend for _multiple_ Samba standalone file servers (security=user). This LDAP server serves mainly other purposes and access for Samba is read only so the situation is not optimal but "it works for us". Still I don't understand one phenomenon concerning visibility...

Hi Nadav, > The new type-legalization mode (-promote-elements) which enables vector-select in LLVM (and a nice perf boost for several workloads), is currently disabled because of a _single_ bug in the ARM codegen which makes a few tests fail.  If ARM is not a supported target, can I mark these tests as 'XFAIL' and enable vector-select support in LLVM ? Which testcase is it? -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State...

...mISDN & mISDNuser and then build Asterisk 1.4. Now I noticed that Digium's HFC chipset based B410P is supported by the latest DAHDI & libpri but reading the source of the wcb4xxp driver it only seems to support HFC chipset based cards with _2_ or more BRI ports. What do I use for a _single_ BRI port card with latest DAHDI, libpri and Asterisk 1.8? Thanks and regards, Patrick

...n this be done in LLVM today? If not, what would it take to > implement? I'm not sure exactly what you want, but we do already have a form of this. If you use the low-level llvm-link program (or gccld --link-as-library), it will take all of the .bc files specified, link them together into a _single_ bytecode file, and write that out (gccld performs IPO on the result). Is this what you mean? Is there any reason to keep the .bc files distinct like a ".a" file, or is it ok for your purposes to link them together into a single unit, like a ".so" file? -Chris -- http://llvm...

...d actually detrimental. All ADS domains will automatically create SRV records in the DNS zone _kerberos.REALM.NAME for each KDC in the realm. MIT's krb5 libraries default to checking for these records, so they will automatically find the KDCs. In addition, krb5.conf only allows specifying a _single_ KDC, even there if there is more than one. Using the DNS lookup allows the krb5 libraries to use whichever KDCs are available. I can't speak to the Heimdal implementation as I've never seen it, but I'd suggest modifying the HOWTO to suggest that the krb5.conf file is strictly optio...

Am 11.02.19 um 13:22 schrieb Rowland Penny via samba: > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:30:51 +0100 > Matthias Leopold via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> we are using a _single_ LDAP server as backend for _multiple_ Samba >> standalone file servers (security=user). This LDAP server serves >> mainly other purposes and access for Samba is read only so the >> situation is not optimal but "it works for us". Still I don't >> understand one...

I'm wondering if LLVM has or should have support for a grouping of modules (which I'll call a package). That is, a package is a partial program contains many (probably related) modules. One might roughly compare it to a shared library. The reason that it is important is that we want to (a) distribute packages, not individual modules and (b) optimize the entire package (e.g. IPO) as a

...M. That's an entirely different situation. -Jim On Oct 8, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Rotem, Nadav wrote: > Hi Tanya, > > The new type-legalization mode (-promote-elements) which enables vector-select in LLVM (and a nice perf boost for several workloads), is currently disabled because of a _single_ bug in the ARM codegen which makes a few tests fail. If ARM is not a supported target, can I mark these tests as 'XFAIL' and enable vector-select support in LLVM ? > > Thanks, > Nadav > > > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:ll...

Hi all, I'm new here and would very much appreciate any help you can give me. We are running a rather outdated mail server that until recently has been running beautifully. Under the pretense of "it is ain't broke, don't fix it" it hasn't been updated so is running Fedora Core 4 and dovecot v0.99.14. What is happening is that as users log in (via thunderbird), they

...: > >> >> >> Am 11.02.19 um 13:22 schrieb Rowland Penny via samba: >>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:30:51 +0100 >>> Matthias Leopold via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> we are using a _single_ LDAP server as backend for _multiple_ Samba >>>> standalone file servers (security=user). This LDAP server serves >>>> mainly other purposes and access for Samba is read only so the >>>> situation is not optimal but "it works for us". Still I don't...

...remote PC, executed it, and this already mean distributed computation"). My idea was to consider Fib example for a single PC with several CPUs and when you are agreed that it makes sense to bring notion of CPU in LLVM layer, i should ask you: "Raid, why should we restrict ourselves with _single_ PC only ?!" > > Okay, now you're talking about "hosts" which I take to mean separate > physical computers with the only way for the "hosts" to communicate is > via a network. Is this what you mean by "host"? We could restrict ourselves to notion...

...> > On Oct 8, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Rotem, Nadav wrote: > > > >> Hi Tanya, > >> > >> The new type-legalization mode (-promote-elements) which enables > vector-select in LLVM (and a nice perf boost for several workloads), is > currently disabled because of a _single_ bug in the ARM codegen which > makes a few tests fail. If ARM is not a supported target, can I mark > these tests as 'XFAIL' and enable vector-select support in LLVM ? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Nadav > >> > >> > >> -----Original Mess...

Interesting email address there :) On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 01:18, =?koi8-r?Q?=22?=Valery A.Khamenya=?koi8-r?Q?=22=20?= wrote: > For the very beginning think of a host with multiple CPUs. > I could formulate my proposal even for this non-networked > case. On the same machine, LLVM definitely needs to support both symmetric and asymmetric multi-processing. I believe some primitives to

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:30:51 +0100 Matthias Leopold via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hi, > > we are using a _single_ LDAP server as backend for _multiple_ Samba > standalone file servers (security=user). This LDAP server serves > mainly other purposes and access for Samba is read only so the > situation is not optimal but "it works for us". Still I don't > understand one phenomenon conc...

...m 13:22 schrieb Rowland Penny via samba: >>>>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:30:51 +0100 >>>>> Matthias Leopold via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> we are using a _single_ LDAP server as backend for _multiple_ >>>>>> Samba standalone file servers (security=user). This LDAP server >>>>>> serves mainly other purposes and access for Samba is read only >>>>>> so the situation is not optimal but "it works for us&q...

On Oct 7, 2011, at 1:07 AM, Seb wrote: > Hi all, > > To answer Eli question, I wanted to know who is actively working on ARM because I submitted some bug report (#11029, #9905) and don't know if someone is working on them, if/when the will be fixed. Maybe I just need to better understand LLVM release process, I've seen a mail in this list about it. Bugs get fixed if there are

.... [Larin, Sergei] Obviously if you treat bundle as a black box this does not make much sense. or isTriviallyReMaterializable() should be able to parse bundle and produce compound answer. Problem is - you will not be able to find many opportunities like that. On the other hand if you detect a _single_ instruction as a remat candidate inside a bundle, you might chose to dissolve (disassemble) the bundle (if possible, as I said before) and treat new serial group as you normally would for remat. There should be a platform dependent pass to rebundle this new serial sequence again, but even if it is...

...> > On Oct 8, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Rotem, Nadav wrote: > > > >> Hi Tanya, > >> > >> The new type-legalization mode (-promote-elements) which enables > vector-select in LLVM (and a nice perf boost for several workloads), is > currently disabled because of a _single_ bug in the ARM codegen which > makes a few tests fail. If ARM is not a supported target, can I mark > these tests as 'XFAIL' and enable vector-select support in LLVM ? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Nadav > >> > >> > >> -----Original Mess...