search for: gsg

Hello, I'm running a few tests here with two locations. site1: server-site1.gsg.local subnet 192.168.200.0/24 site2: server-site2.gsg.local subnet 192.168.190.0/24 both are connected via VPN. I migrated an samba3 domain at server-site1 it gets Default-First-Site-Name assigned. Then I joined the new samba4 domain withe server-site2. Both servers work and i can join and acce...

...ded in this >> document, it would be good to move it somewhere other than a footnote... > > I agree, do you have any suggestion? How about the programmer's manual? It seems like just a general hint for using mingw, not LLVM specific at all. Should I remove the comment from the GSG? -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/

Hi, By accident i did something like this via an scrip to populate an reverse zone. ~# samba-tool dns add server 200.168.192.in-addr.arpa 1.1 PTR test.gsg.local And indeed that record was added successfully and even showed up on the DNS Remote Management on an Win2kR2 Server like this 192.168.200.1.1 PTR test.gsg.local Good thing the record can be deleted but i guess it should not be possible to create such an record. Beside that the DNS Remo...

I'm sorry if this post came through already ... Hi, I'm working on a project where the plan is to place a number of Samba servers on different locations as file and print servers. The samba server is supposed to be a part of the AD, which is easily done, but the samba servers are to contain a number of shares that only people with a valid logon on the AD will be able to access. How can

...gt;> problem? If so, we should document 4.1.1 as being buggy. > > FWIW, I returned to 3.4.6 when 4.1.1 didn't work out for me. I haven't > tried 4.1.2. I'm waiting for the dust to settle on 4.2 Do you recall what didn't work? Does 4.1.0 work? Documenting this in the GSG is really important for new users. Thx, -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

Chris Lattner kirjoitti: > Question: does GCC 4.1.2 (if it exists) or GCC mainline fix the > problem? If so, we should document 4.1.1 as being buggy. GCC 4.1.2 does not exist yet, but I grabbed the 4.2-20060906 snapshot of GCC and it compiled LLVM without problems. I verified that the hello world example from Getting Started worked, but did not test beyond that. This is on x86 Gentoo. --

...by using 'gccas --help' or 'gccld --help'. To disable a gccas option, use -Wa,-disable-foo, for gccld, use -Wl,-disable-foo on the llvmgcc command line. Additionally, you can use opt to run individual optimizations, of which there are a lot. :) I added the following patch to the GSG. If you have a better suggestion, please let me know: http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20040426/014073.html > 2. > If i am not wrong there is no tool, which integrates all > steps: > > llvmgcc->opt->llc into something like llcc > (and llvmg++->...

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 10:22 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > Okay. Question: does GCC 4.1.2 (if it exists) or GCC mainline fix the > problem? If so, we should document 4.1.1 as being buggy. FWIW, I returned to 3.4.6 when 4.1.1 didn't work out for me. I haven't tried 4.1.2. I'm waiting for the dust to settle on 4.2 Reid

Hi devels, there are two issues concerning invoking optimizations: 1. this document: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/GettingStarted.html is very nice, it would be good though to add in a section An Example Using the LLVM Tool Chain examples on optimization step. 2. If i am not wrong there is no tool, which integrates all steps: llvmgcc->opt->llc into something like llcc (and

>From: Chris Lattner Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:11:44 -0600 (CST) > >On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Chris Lattner wrote: > >>On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Henrik Bach wrote: >> >>>Here is my first try to document, how to build the llvm suite for MinGW. >> >>The GettingStarted patch looks fine to me, and I've applied it here:

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Henrik Bach wrote: > >> Here is my first try to document, how to build the llvm suite for MinGW. > > The GettingStarted patch looks fine to me, and I've applied it here: > http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20050207/023986.html > > The other patch does not look ok. In particular,

Am 25.11.2017 um 16:55 schrieb Achim Gottinger via samba: > > > Am 25.11.2017 um 04:39 schrieb Andrew Bartlett: >> On Fri, 2017-11-24 at 11:55 +1300, Andrew Bartlett via samba wrote: >>> On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 11:21 +0100, Achim Gottinger via samba wrote: >>>> Hello List, >>>> >>>> In preparation to update my samba ad-dc's running

Hi All Just trying to config dovecot and I'm guessing there's been a change in the app. In the dovecot.conf and on http://wiki.dovecot.org/MainConfig I see "Number of login processes to create. If login_process_per_user is yes, this is the number of extra processes waiting for users to log in." but as a config option I only see "login_process_per_connection = yes"