search for: dwindled

Many of you are probably wondering about the status of the 2.3 release. Unfortunately, this release has been very difficult and the list of regressions very high. The list has finally dwindled down to the following regressions: Linux/x86: SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftbench [ JIT Codegen, JIT] MultiSource/Applications/minisat/minisat [CBE] Darwin/x86: External/SPEC/CINT2006/403.gcc/403.gcc [CBE, but works on mainline..] Darwin/ppc: SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftben...

Hi folks, I use R in X windows on Linux. Normally, I use 'less' as pager, which is fine for scanning through 'help' (or '?') output in the R window itself; the help session is terminated by typing "q", as usual for 'less', and the R window then reverts to the R command line interface. Often, I would like to have the output from 'help' pop up in

Hi folks, I use R in X windows on Linux. Normally, I use 'less' as pager, which is fine for scanning through 'help' (or '?') output in the R window itself; the help session is terminated by typing "q", as usual for 'less', and the R window then reverts to the R command line interface. Often, I would like to have the output from 'help' pop up in

Tanya Lattner wrote: > Many of you are probably wondering about the status of the 2.3 > release. Unfortunately, this release has been very difficult and the > list of regressions very high. The list has finally dwindled down to > the following regressions: > > Linux/x86: > SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftbench [ JIT Codegen, JIT] Increasing ulimit to 230 Mb (from 200Mb) makes fftbench/JIT pass on mainline. Maybe JIT should have a higher ulimit because it needs to keep the bytecode in memory to...

On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:11 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > Many of you are probably wondering about the status of the 2.3 > release. Unfortunately, this release has been very difficult and the > list of regressions very high. The list has finally dwindled down to > the following regressions: > ... > Darwin/ppc: > SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftbench [ CBE ] For my test run, it looks like the type "llvmUInt128" isn't defined. Is this this the error that you're seeing? > External/SPEC/CINT2006/403.gcc/403...

let's talk about writing tools that use markdown (or more broadly, another form of light-markup)... to begin with, there is the markdown "dingus"... from a demo perspective, it has been _fantastic_. it has provided interested observers a quick idea about the simplicity and the power of markdown. as a writing tool, it's a bit clunky; it will work, yes, but i'd doubt many

Hi All, Is anyone successfully using ROR 2.x with Firebird 2.x in a production environment? The support seems to have dwindled. I would greatly appreciate any installation guidelines, comments or tips. What is somewhat confusing is what is required to for ROR to play nicely with firebird. I have come across fireruby, fb_adapter, fb-0.5.9...there does not seem to be cohesive install / requirement steps...I certainly don...

On 10 Mar 2015, at 10:26, Alessio Cecchi <alessio at skye.it> wrote: > > Hi Stephan, > > I'm running the current stable version (Dovecot 2.2.15 and Pigeonhole 0.4.6), all works fine except an issue. > > Feb 16 03:23:41 mx03 dovecot: lda(user at domain.com): Panic: file mail-transaction-log.c: line 271 (mail_transaction_log_rotate): assertion failed: (file->locked)

Ok, I have good news! Thanks for the help! On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:11 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > Many of you are probably wondering about the status of the 2.3 > release. Unfortunately, this release has been very difficult and > the list of regressions very high. The list has finally dwindled > down to the following regressions: > > Linux/x86: > SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/fftbench [ JIT Codegen, JIT] > MultiSource/Applications/minisat/minisat [CBE] > Both of these are now fixed! > Darwin/x86: > External/SPEC/CINT2006/403.gcc/403.gcc [CBE, but works o...

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:03 PM, james northrup<northrup.james at gmail.com> wrote: > CC="p llvm-gcc-4.2 `llvm-config --cflags` -march=i386  --emit-llvm -O0 >  -c -I$PLAT/include -I$ROOT/include -I$ROOT/utils/    include" > LD="p llvm-ld `llvm-config --ldflags --libs all  `" > AR="p llvm-ar crvs" Using llvm-ar+llvm-ld is likely to give you bad

G'Day All, We have been supporting linux as a side business for a while (because we use that skill set in our own value chain internally) and we are now going to start targeting the wider local Chinese market and not just the foreign companies and joint ventures. As such we expect to see tremendous growth in this market segment this year due to the quickly dwindling support of local

Hello, I had a scientific linux 3.0.4 system (rhel compatible), with 3 ide disks, one for / and two others in linear raid (250 gb and 300 gb each). This system was obsoleted so i move the raid disks to a new scientific linux 3.0.7 installation. However, the raid array was not detected ( I put the disks on the same channels and same master/lsave setup as in the previous setup). In fact

Retrieving the high 32 bits of a signed multiply is rather annoying. It appears that the simplest way to do this is to compute the absolute value of the arguments, and perform a u32 x u32 -> u64 operation. If the arguments' signs differ, then negate the result. Since there is no u64 support in the cvt instruction, we have the perform the 2's complement negation "by hand".

hello, I'm attempting to build the inferno source tree using either of native LTO or jit'd bins and having no obvious luck. im using macports (current as of this email) llvm-2.5 and llvm-gcc on a macbook pro (x86) following the inferno directions verbatim will use 'cc' as the compiler and just works. the build tools are different from the naive build tools as follows:

Thanks for your thoughts, Chris. > As supporting evidence of this, I was discussing this thread yesterday around the office yesterday and had quite a few people responding something along the lines of “they’re proposing what?”. I hope they'll join us in this thread. Ultimately a survey is going to be strongly biased in favor of "don't change anything". There is a strong

Here is the bulk of the sanitizing. My residual doubts center around the question whether we still do/want to support (un)compressed *byte*code in 2.0/2.1. I need a definitive word on this to proceed. My understanding is that bytecode is already gone, but there are still some functions/enums that really deal with *byte*code (instead of *bit*code). I did not touch those areas, so the attached