search for: extinsions

I've just started consulting for a SME client based in Reston Virginia. They don't know it yet but they are going to need a hosted asterisk service and some DID's. Email me if you are able to provide 10 DID's in Reston (must be able to be ported away!!) and hosted Asterisk with end user configurable IVR etc. Probably only 5-8 users at the moment BUT... they'll be

On Feb 27, 2009, at 12:56, Mark Shannon wrote: > Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> The ultimate endgoal is to support schemes with still-lower >> execution overhead. The next step for LLVM GC would be elimination >> of the reload penalty for using GC intrinsics with a copying >> collector. This, again, requires that the code generator perform >> bookkeeping

...ect: [asterisk-users] Basic outbound calling > issue > > > > > > I am trying to lauch a first outbound call. > > > I am connected to my telco via a peer which is a > > little > > > different from what I consider the norm. > > > > > > extinsions.conf > > > > > > [To_Bandwidth] > > > ignorepat => 9 > > > exten => 9,1,Dial(Sip/g2/) > > > exten => 9,2,Congestion > > > > > > sip.conf > > > > > > [To_Bandwidth] > > > canreinvite=yes > > &...

Gordon Henriksen wrote: > Hi Mark, > > I don't think anyone will dispute that it's easier to hack up a shadow > stack (or plug into a conservative collector) to get up and running > with GC. That is absolutely the route to go if portability trumps > performance. Why? LLVM is all about portability AND performance. > > If you review the mailing list history,

Gordon Henriksen wrote: > > The "runtime interface" is a historical artifact. LLVM does not impose > a runtime library on its users. I wouldn't have a problem deleting all > mention of it, since LLVM does not impose a contract on the runtime. > Excellent, I found it somewhat unhelpful! >> The semantics of llvm.gcroot are vague: >> "At