search for: decalring

I have just some vague and thus probably wrong ideas about when to use model() in controllers, and by now I err on being redundant. I don''t post them here to avoid leaving anything that may be false in the archives. Can anyone explain exactly in which cases one should use model()? -- fxn

Hi All, On my llvm pass I have some variable named "expr" which is being declared as :- string expr; // or char *expr; // Now I want to pass this "expr" to some external function. How can I do this?? Similarly, How can I pass variable "var" to an external function which is being decalred as :- Vector<int> var; Any help will be

This patch adds the MTRR MSRs save/restore support. Signed-off-by: Disheng Su <disheng.su@intel.com> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

> > Basically, flag operands are a hack used to handle resources that > are not > > accurately modeled in the scheduler (e.g. condition codes, explicit > > register assignments, etc). The basic idea of the flag operand is > that > > they require the scheduler to keep the "flagged" nodes stuck > together in > > the output machine instructions. >

A frind of mine and I are running a dedicated server, that among other things host mail for ourselves and friends and families. All in all about 15 different domains with 35-40 users. The machine in question is old, so we are doing a slow transition from the old server to the new one. So far, we've managed to move web hosts seamlessly. Due to the technical capabilities at some of the user

Greetings, I inherited a samba based domain at my work with two domain controllers running Zentyal 3.4.8 with samba version 4.1.6-Zentyal. I don't know if it's modified by the Zentyal team but they don't support this version anymore, that's why I'm writing to this list. The previos sysadmin told me that replication stopped working a while back, but only in one direction. PDC

> On Apr 1, 2020, at 2:56 AM, Sourabh Singh Tomar <sourav0311 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Do you mean documenting the desired frontend behavior, or adding some verifier in > LLVM? A warning for the latter is that SROA may currently emit IR that contains a > mix of declares and values for different fragments of an aggregate variable, so I > assume that is something that

> On Mar 30, 2020, at 11:57 PM, Sourabh Singh Tomar <sourav0311 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > My understanding is that this isn't correct: dbg.declare specifies the >> memory address of a variable for the whole lifetime of the function, >> whereas dbg.value (and dbg.addr) specify the value/address until the >> next debug intrinsic. Mixing these two kinds

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Abhinash Jain <omnia at mailinator.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > On my llvm pass I have some variable named "expr" which is being declared as > :- > string expr; // or char *expr; // I don't understand this question - these are C++ declarations, not LLVM declarations (not to mention LLVM IR doesn't have

Before digging into the whole stack of what composed an AD, I would try to replace this second DC (the one you called SDC). When joining a DC to a Samba AD domain,if this DC was already decalred as DC, Samba first demote that DC to then start a the whole process to join that DC to the domain. And that whole process includes re-creation of the AD database locally with full synchronisation. Not

We have severla samba servers which we've just tried to upgrade to using the domain based security. Most things seem to be fine but there is one problem which is causing some trouble. Roaming profiles are decalred on the PDC to be: logon path = \\ufs.%G\%U\Profiles which resolves to a folder called Profiles in the users home directory. The server ufs.%G is not the same server as

> Basically, flag operands are a hack used to handle resources that are not > accurately modeled in the scheduler (e.g. condition codes, explicit > register assignments, etc). The basic idea of the flag operand is that > they require the scheduler to keep the "flagged" nodes stuck together in > the output machine instructions. >From an user point of view, flags have

One of the things that turned me on to BDD and RSpec was speccing views first, that the desired end would drive the development. In previous projects while using Test::Unit I would try to make educated guesses as to what would be needed in the model and controllers to derive the view without actually writing the view until afterwards. This is all because testing relied on each previous

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > But your previous explanations were so good that I implemented in my > backend last week almost the same that you've done now in the > X86InstrSSE.td. I even introduced isCommutable parameter to indicate > this property, just as you did. So, by now integer arithmetic and > general purpose instructions are implemented. I'm working

I'm afraid I am at a loss. If the three files, app_cbmysql.c, app_meetme2.c and Makefile all exist in ../apps then a patch -p1 from the ../asterisk directory should work. The -p1 tells patch to ignore the first directory in the path to the file in the patch, -p2 ignores two directories. Another option is to just edit the apps-meetme-cbmysql.txt and split it into three patchs and apply