search for: _sounds_

...the only compiler around, I'd say this would be the least painful route, but still no fun since it requires changes to a lot of user code (in packages too). It is not clear if this approach works with other Fortrans. - figure out Fortran2003 specification for C/Fortran interoperability -- this _sounds_ like the right solution, but I don't think many understand how to use it and what is implied (in particular, will it require making changes to LAPACK itself?) - move towards the LAPACKE C interface -- but that also adds onionskin overhead and ultimately calls Fortran in essentially the same wa...

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 09:12:29AM -0500, Boris Epstein wrote: > OK... but why does it need to be a trunk port? If you are on a trunk port then your machine needs to be configured for VLANs. If you are not on a trunk port then your machine needs to be configured normally. It _sounds_ like you have configured your machine for VLANs but are not on a trunk port. -- rgds Stephen

On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 06:42:47PM +0200, Thomas K?nig wrote: > > > - figure out Fortran2003 specification for C/Fortran interoperability > > -- this _sounds_ like the right solution, but I don't think many > > understand how to use it and what is implied (in particular, will > > it require making changes to LAPACK itself?) > > That would actually be fairly easy. If you declare the subroutines > BIND(C), as in > >...

...1:55 AM Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalibera at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/4/19 6:49 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 06:42:47PM +0200, Thomas K?nig wrote: > >>> - figure out Fortran2003 specification for C/Fortran interoperability > >>> -- this _sounds_ like the right solution, but I don't think many > >>> understand how to use it and what is implied (in particular, will > >>> it require making changes to LAPACK itself?) > >> That would actually be fairly easy. If you declare the subroutines > >> BIND...

On 5/4/19 6:49 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 06:42:47PM +0200, Thomas K?nig wrote: >>> - figure out Fortran2003 specification for C/Fortran interoperability >>> -- this _sounds_ like the right solution, but I don't think many >>> understand how to use it and what is implied (in particular, will >>> it require making changes to LAPACK itself?) >> That would actually be fairly easy. If you declare the subroutines >> BIND(C), as in >>...

...f user code (in packages too). It is not clear if this approach works with other Fortrans. The interesting thing is that this convention goes back to at least f2c, which was modeled on the very first Unix compiler. > - figure out Fortran2003 specification for C/Fortran interoperability -- this _sounds_ like the right solution, but I don't think many understand how to use it and what is implied (in particular, will it require making changes to LAPACK itself?) That would actually be fairly easy. If you declare the subroutines BIND(C), as in subroutine foo(a,b) BIND(C,name="foo_&q...

...Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalibera at gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/4/19 6:49 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: >>> On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 06:42:47PM +0200, Thomas K?nig wrote: >>>>> - figure out Fortran2003 specification for C/Fortran interoperability >>>>> -- this _sounds_ like the right solution, but I don't think many >>>>> understand how to use it and what is implied (in particular, will >>>>> it require making changes to LAPACK itself?) >>>> That would actually be fairly easy. If you declare the subroutines >>&...

Hi Tomas, thanks a lot for your analysis. I have created https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329 for this, and put you in CC (if your e-mail address for GCC bugzilla is still current). Regards Thomas

Hello, congratulations to the Ogg Vorbis team - RC2 sounds good. But... RC2 in 128 kbps mode seems to clip off all frequencys beyond 16 KHz. On the tracks I tested Beta 4 gave response even beyond 18 KHz. Some testings on a randomly chosen track: (other tracks gave similar results) Artist: Judas Priest Album: Jugulator Title: Bullet Train Beta4: 127 kbps, ~ 18 KHz (!) RC2: 132 kbps (!), ~ 16

So I was transferring a 2GB virtual machine disk image image over a slow wireless link. Of course I used --sparse, to keep the image small on the destination end as well as on the source end. Much to my surprise, I noticed that the transfer took a long time even when it got past the first 0.5GB of actually-populated file. A little sleuthing with strace revealed that the source rsync was dutifully

Andrew and Dennis are spot on. Their conclusions about your server being connected to an access port and not a trunk port would be my conclusion as well. On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn < dennisml at conversis.de> wrote: > Hi Boris, > what I'd like to know is the actual VLAN configuration of the switch > port (link-type and tagged and untagged VLANs).