search for: calller

There was a discussion a while back about how to pass Calller ID, when forwarding, as either the calling number, or the forwarding number. Had something to do with "scams" IIRC, but could not find in browsing the archives. So, is it in the docs? Starting point or full tilt would be appreciated. joe a.

Hi List! I installed Asterisk 1.0.3 stable on a RHEL rebuild. Due to problems with * modules refusing to build I replaced the RHEL kernel with stock 2.6.10. Asterisk seems to be working but when I dial voicemail I hear nothing. When I hangup I see a message on the console that the calller did not specify a mailbox number so I guess voicemail app is working. The phone(Grandstream BT100) is connected directly to the * server so it's not any NAT or firewall trouble (no firewall installed). Any ideas? Which kernel options are required for Asterisk to function properly. Any rec...

...Please remove -regalloc=local -fast. We want to test this patch > separately. Can you explain the advantages / disadvantages of -tail- > call-opt-align-stack? When you do tail call optimization just before calling/jmping to the callee you sometimes have to adjust the stack pointer. e.g int calller(int arg1, int arg2) { return callee(arg2, arg1, 2*arg3; } conceptually before jumping to callee the stackpointer has to be adjusted (by -4 bytes in the example). Now this can cause the stack to be misaligned (according to the target abi. In order to prevent this when calculating the argument siz...

On Oct 2, 2007, at 2:27 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > Hi all, > > I changed the code that checks whether a tail call is really > eligible for optimization so that it performs the check/fix in > SelectionDAGISel.cpp:BuildSelectionDAG() as suggest by Evan. Also > eliminated an error that caused the remaining failing test cases in > the test-suite. > > The

On Jun 2, 2008, at 8:45 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi Dan, > >> Yes, the intention is that getresult will be removed once first-class >> aggregates are a ready replacement. This won't leave LLVM missing the >> concept of returning multiple values; a struct can be thought of as >> a container for multiple values. > I'm not saying we don't have some

...Use common array of rings Add I915_EXEC_DEFAULT to list of known engines igt/gem_cs_prefetch: Check each ring igt/gem_concurrent_all: Pass buffer data down igt/gem_concurrent_blit: Disable libdrm buffer cache for child inheritance igt/gem_reset_stats: Convert residual calllers of gem_exec() to gem_execbuf() tests: Add gem_exec_reloc lib: Hide BSD1/BSD2 rings on hardware without BSD2 igt/gem_ringfill: Set MI_MEM_VIRTUAL flag for gen<6 igt: More MI_STORE_DWORD fixes for gen5 igt/gem_cs_tlb: Increase BB start alignment to 64bytes igt/...

...i Dan, > The requirement to update all callers' call instructions when a callee > gets a new return value is also present in the current MRV-mechanism > with getresult. It's not been a problem we've worried about so far. I didn't mean you can get away without updating your calllers, I'm just saying it could be a bit easier. > Can you give some background about what kinds of things you're thinking > about for this? For example, when I have a function returning {i32, i32} and I want to add another i32 to that. If this was a function that simply returns two i32 v...

Hi Dan, > Yes, the intention is that getresult will be removed once first-class > aggregates are a ready replacement. This won't leave LLVM missing the > concept of returning multiple values; a struct can be thought of as > a container for multiple values. I'm not saying we don't have some way of modeling multiple return values, I'm sayin the explicit concept

Paravirt spinlock clears slowpath flag after doing unlock. As explained by Linus currently it does: prev = *lock; add_smp(&lock->tickets.head, TICKET_LOCK_INC); /* add_smp() is a full mb() */ if (unlikely(lock->tickets.tail & TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG)) __ticket_unlock_slowpath(lock, prev); which

Paravirt spinlock clears slowpath flag after doing unlock. As explained by Linus currently it does: prev = *lock; add_smp(&lock->tickets.head, TICKET_LOCK_INC); /* add_smp() is a full mb() */ if (unlikely(lock->tickets.tail & TICKET_SLOWPATH_FLAG)) __ticket_unlock_slowpath(lock, prev); which