Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "elimint".
Did you mean:
elimine
2018 Jun 14
1
new problem
...find out what the problem is I have now done the
following:
installed dovecot on my laptop
my data is mounted per NFS
started Thunderbird
I get exectly the same messages
I then copied my data onto a local partition of my hard drive laptop
and mount this as my $HOME
The reasoning behind this: eliminte any problems coming from NFS.
Again - the same error messages.
Most worrying is that when I fire up Thunderbird I get:
SERVERBUG internal error
--
--
Best Regards, Walter Ulmke
Ulmke Machine Tools, 48496 Hopsten, Germany
Tel. ++49/5458/93345-0 Fax. ++49/5458/93345-45
Mobile: ++49/172/...
2007 Nov 06
1
[LLVMdev] Passing and returning aggregates (who is responsible for the ABI?)
...sion was at least 70% faster
than the C++ version.
Why? Because the user-defined complex operations in XL were all done
in registers, whereas at that level of optimization, the C++ compiler
was not doing the memory aliasing analysis required to perform
"register field promotion", elimintate the "this pointer", and turn
the C++ complex class into registers. In other words, a complex
addition was 4 loads, two fp adds, and 2 stores for C++, as opposed
to only the fp adds for XL. Obviously, an IR assuming that aggregates
are in memory does not help here.
>>
&g...
2007 Nov 06
0
[LLVMdev] Passing and returning aggregates (who is responsible for the ABI?)
On Nov 5, 2007, at 19:19, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> I'm trying to port the XL compiler (http://xlr.sf.net) to use the
> LLVM back-end. So far, little trouble doing so. But there is one
> aspect of the semantics of the LLVM IR that surprises me. Why are
> the call, declare and define "halfway through" ABI conventions?
>
> I think it's the right thing
2007 Nov 06
4
[LLVMdev] Passing and returning aggregates (who is responsible for the ABI?)
Hello,
I'm trying to port the XL compiler (http://xlr.sf.net) to use the
LLVM back-end. So far, little trouble doing so. But there is one
aspect of the semantics of the LLVM IR that surprises me. Why are the
call, declare and define "halfway through" ABI conventions?
I think it's the right thing to have a single high level node for
each call, as opposed to separate
2018 Jun 13
5
new problem
1) my inbox is "Posteingang". should I officially declare it somewhere?
I now get the following error messages:
Jun 14 00:23:32 ulmke2 dovecot[3981]: imap(ulw)<3997><4O/Xbo1uotLAqGQd>:
Error: opendir(/u/ulw/Mail) failed: Permission denied (euid=503(ulw)
egid=100(users) UNIX perms appear ok (ACL/MAC wrong?))
Jun 14 00:23:32 ulmke2 dovecot[3981]: