search for: isntructions

Hi, Just browsing through the asterisk.org site and I see in the setup isntructions that only Zaptel, Libpri and Asterisk need to be checked out.. Has Zapata been intergrated into one of the other packages? -- ______________________________________________ http://www.linuxmail.org/ Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr Powered by Outblaze

Hello, here is the version of R that I use : > version _ platform i486-pc-linux-gnu arch i486 os linux-gnu system i486, linux-gnu status major 2 minor 3.1 year 2006 month 06 day 01 svn rev 38247 language R version.string Version 2.3.1 (2006-06-01) And here is one of the sequences of

Hello, Presumably I have two value v1 and v2 from two different basic block A and B. Now I need to insert to a printf to print those two values at the same time. This means I need to find a basic block to insert such a calling isntruction and at the same time, the basic block should be dominated by v1 and v2. Is there any easy way to find such a basic block? Cheers, Zheng

On 01/12/2016 09:20 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >> #ifdef xchgrz >> /* same as xchg but poking at gcc red zone */ >> #define barrier() do { int ret; asm volatile ("xchgl %0, -4(%%" SP ");": "=r"(ret) :: "memory", "cc"); } while (0) >>

On 01/12/2016 09:20 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >> #ifdef xchgrz >> /* same as xchg but poking at gcc red zone */ >> #define barrier() do { int ret; asm volatile ("xchgl %0, -4(%%" SP ");": "=r"(ret) :: "memory", "cc"); } while (0) >>

I've been trying for weeks to get winbind working with RedHat Linux 8.0. I've got everything setup per the winbind docs on http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/Samba-HOWTO-Collection.html#WINBIND. I've successfully joined my NT4 domain with smbpasswd -j DOMAIN -r PDC -U Administrator. Running wbinfo -u returns my domain user list, as well as wbinfo -g returning my domain groups. getent

Hi all, Please can anybody explain how communication(direct or indirect) happens between xen and guest os(windows) in full virtualization mode. Both from VMM to guest and from guest to VMM. Thanks and regards, Aditya. __________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers.yahoo.com/

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel.org> wrote: > > I recall reading somewhere that lock addl $0, 32(%rsp) or so (maybe even 64) > was better because it avoided stomping on very-likely-to-be-hot write > buffers. I suspect it could go either way. You want a small constant (for the isntruction size), but any small constant is likely to be within the

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:59:58PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel.org> wrote: > >> > >> I recall reading somewhere that lock addl $0, 32(%rsp) or so (maybe even 64) > >> was better

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel.org> wrote: >> >> I recall reading somewhere that lock addl $0, 32(%rsp) or so (maybe even 64) >> was better because it avoided stomping on very-likely-to-be-hot write >> buffers. > > I suspect it

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel.org> wrote: >> >> I recall reading somewhere that lock addl $0, 32(%rsp) or so (maybe even 64) >> was better because it avoided stomping on very-likely-to-be-hot write >> buffers. > > I suspect it

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: >> We would still keep the existing pre-table-driven-isel passes so we'd >> still have a chance to do some cleanup before the main table-driven >> isel. >> >> Obviously a lot of details have to be worked out. > > I'm not seeing how this is useful for shuffles. Since tblgen doesn't > generate

Dear The Expert, I am very new with this, I don't understand why my Windows 2000 Prof PC failed when trying to register as member of domain "LINUX".. but I am able to login by using Windows 9x client , below is my /etc/samba/smb.conf I need advise.. thanks a lot in advance [global] workgroup = LINUX server string = Samba Server printcap name = /etc/printcap load printers = yes

On Mar 27, 2011, at 1:16 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > >>> We would still keep the existing pre-table-driven-isel passes so we'd >>> still have a chance to do some cleanup before the main table-driven >>> isel. >>> >>> Obviously a lot of details have to be worked out. >> >>

After a little experimentation, I've come up with this: create a directory as a temp mount point (chmod 777) called /home.domainuser or something similar and assign the template homedir variable to it. This works for the first login, but I'm looking for advice on how I can rm -rf the whole thing to clean it up for the next user. Additionally, I noticed that it doesn't actually mount

Well, I've started to look at pam_mount and it seems it doesn't compile under RH8.0 because it's missing pam_modules.h. I've located that in the source for pam. It's found in pam-0.75-46.8.0.src.rpm. The error I get is during the configure part: checking for security/pam_modules.h... no configure: error: You are missing security/pam_modules.h I'm not so good with

On Mar 17, 2011, at 9:32 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: >>> 1. We have special target-specific operators for certain shuffles in X86, >>> such as X86unpckl. > >> It also eliminates a lot of fragility. Before doing this, X86 >> legalize would have to be very careful to specifically form shuffles >> that

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: >> 1. We have special target-specific operators for certain shuffles in X86, >> such as X86unpckl. > It also eliminates a lot of fragility. Before doing this, X86 > legalize would have to be very careful to specifically form shuffles > that it knew isel would turn into (e.g.) unpck operations. Now > instead of