search for: input_filenames

Hello! I've got troubles on following thing: As output I need a string like: INPUT_FILENAMES = H:\\AKK_temp\\Modis\\MOD13Q1\\austria\\MOD09Q1.A2008073.h18v04.005.2008083134952.hdf|H:\\AKK_temp\\Modis\\MOD13Q1\\austria\\MOD09Q1.A2008073.h19v04.005.2008082182221.hdf The filenames (dates) are with pathname (wrkdr) and separated with "|". The number of input filenames changes (minimu...

Hello, I am a master's student using Speex for my thesis research. My question is this: I am running speex from a command line in Unix and I want to encode/decode numerous files at once. How can this be done since the speexenc requires [options] input_filename.wav output_filename.spx and the reverse extensions for the decoder. Sorry I am much more of a hardware (read: EE) then a CS guy. I

Hi Zachary: I was able to reproduce the greendragon results locally (OSX), and fix the problem by excluding 'debuginfo-tests' from check-clang -- this prevents them from being added twice, once for check-clang and again for check-debuginfo. Below are the minimized patches I used to reproduce and fix the problem -- based on your originals. I've verified these patches work when

> On Dec 6, 2017, at 10:21 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > > Can I have some assurance that if it fails again, someone will look into who has access to the builders so I don't have to keep doing speculative commits? Sure. I did this last time and I promise to also do it this time. -- adrian > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:13 AM Adrian Prantl

> On Dec 6, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > > Adrian, Mike, Chris? Any update on this? I've temporarily switched to working on something different, but I plan to be back on this in a couple of weeks. It's been a month since my first revert of this CL, which seems like a reasonable amount of lead-time to deal with issues surrounding

I sorta enjoy debugging stuff like this, so if you don't mind, I'll dig into it once I get a chance -- traveling so, my access is a bit sketchy right now. I'll see if I can grab the logs and let you know if I find anything interesting. On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > That change was added specifically to workaround a failure

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