search for: dupree

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Isaac Dupree <ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote: > On 03/06/10 18:03, OvermindDL1 wrote: >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Isaac Dupree >> <ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org>  wrote: >>> >>> On 03/06/10 17:37, OvermindDL1 wrote: >>>> >...

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:30:39 +0800 Michael Dupree <michael at easybitllc.com> wrote: > Not 100% ure, but maybe play with the canreinvite or directmedia > settings. Yes! That was it. Just for future searches here is what I did. I added "directmedia = no" in sip.conf. This fixed the issue. I believe that Asterisk was gett...

I can't see why you'd want to do this, no. -eric On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Isaac Dupree < ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote: > Is the C backend at all suitable to be adapted to emit OpenCL code? Or > do the target-dependence, and/or things that C can do but OpenCL can't, > make that hopeless? > -Isaac > > On 08/19/2014 03:08 PM, Carback, Richard T....

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Cédric Venet <cedric.venet at laposte.net> wrote: > Le 06/03/2010 11:43, José Fonseca a écrit : >> >> Attached are two patches with MSVC build enchancements. >> >> They are quite trivial, but were necessary to correctly link LLVM >> libraries with Mesa3D on Windows. >> >> Jose >> > > Are you volontary

I have been banging my head against the wall for weeks now on this one. I have a switch running NetBSD and Asterisk 11.19.0 although I have had this problem on older versions as well. I, and my users, can call out, we can receive calls, quality is excellent but I cannot talk with one user. The different elements are as follows: The switch as described above which is in a server room on the

Hi - attached is a patch to enable building DragonEgg (x86_64) for LLVM3.3 and LLVM3.4. That is, add these changes to the 3.3 release, and it becomes possible to build DragonEgg against a llvm3.4 compiler. Regards, Richard Gorton Cognitive Electronics rcgorton at cog-e.com ---------- -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name:

On 11/09/10 22:27, Samuel Crow wrote: >> It shouldn't compile. You have the method declared inside the templated class >> thus indicating infinite recursion. No, the method is not in the class. It is a function that returns a T<4> and takes (approximately) a reference to a multidimensional array of T<4>s. In fact it compiles fine for me, with no warnings, under

...s of real-world deployment experience. ? A ?stable? branch. Adhearsion?s exposed API will remain stable throughout this major version number series. No backward-incompatible changes will be made, making it safer for developers to trust future upgrades. ? Updated documentation. Thanks to Justin Dupree of Tropo, Adhearsion?s docs received a lot of TLC in the form of content updates and a migration to Github Wiki. Check them out at docs.adhearsion.com ? Gem-based Components. The final feature added to Adhearsion prior to 1.0 is the ability to install and use components via RubyGems. Learn more...

Whoops, forgot to CC: the list. > >----- Forwarded Message ---- >From: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> >To: Sheng Zhou <zhousheng00 at gmail.com> >Sent: Tue, November 9, 2010 9:26:51 PM >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] llvm-gcc not compatible with gcc on a small case? > > >Hi Sheng Zhou, > > >It shouldn't compile. You have the method declared

I tried the LLVM demo with unmodified settings http://llvm.org/demo/index.cgi (same results from llvm 2.6 with clang, `clang-cc -emit-llvm -O2 test.c`, on my Linux x86_64) For fun, I made a recursive function, but LLVM optimized it wrong (if I'm understanding C standards correctly). "void f() { f(); }"[see llvm-code in footnote 1] was optimized to be equivalent to "void f()

Starting with a fresh load and after I finish hardening the load following the Center for Internet Security (CIS) guidance, I'm wondering whether AIDE or OSSEC would be a better intrusion detection system. I installed AIDE and did a quick test of AIDE and after initializing the db and applying the recent cups update, I found that 1700+ files had changed. Those are a lot of changes to wade

It provides a useful starting point, but I agree with Jim that it is not a complete solution and requires rework of the results in a lot cases. I think we could improve it further to address these issues but that work is nontrivial. If you are deciding between a quick and dirty implementation of a custom backend vs. the C backend, then the C backend is sometimes preferable in my experience

On 02/28/10 07:39, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Isaac, > >> For fun, I made a recursive function, but LLVM optimized it wrong (if >> I'm understanding C standards correctly). >> >> "void f() { f(); }"[see llvm-code in footnote 1] >> was optimized to be equivalent to "void f() {}"[also 1]. I believe it >> should either be equivalent in

Your credit history does not matter to us! If you OWN property and want IMMEDIATE pocket money to spend ANY way you like, or simply require to LOWER your current payments by a third or more, here is our deal we can offer you TODAY (hurry, this offer will expire THIS EVENING): $442,000+ loan AND EVEN MORE: After further review, our lenders have established the lowest payments! Hurry, when best

On 12/16/10 17:42, Lu Mitnick wrote: > Hello all, > > I want to the do followings: > > (1) Modify the LLVM front-end(clang) to support EFI C > > (2) Add EFI Byte Code target to LLVM > > I am wondering to know which task should I do first, modify front end or > porting LLVM? You might want to look at the challenges discussed in this thread, mainly that pointer size