search for: linuxone

I see the new kernel available in the plus repository... is there some way to view what the differences are between that and the mainline kernel?

...for those folks similar to the ones in the quota tools, I guess, seems like the best option to me too. The configure script and quota.c could then be tidied up a bit here too - long time since I looked at that code though. cheers. -- Nathan ----- Forwarded message from Yu-Chan Park <super@linuxone.co.kr> ----- Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 13:20:04 +0900 To: "Nathan Scott" <nathans@sgi.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 From: "Yu-Chan Park" <super@linuxone.co.kr> Subject: Re: SAMBA compile errors at XFS kernel.. Thanks your help I attach m...

Hi, I upgraded the Visual Studio SLN file to work with 2005 and had to make some changes. The first two have to do with the fact that the debug implementation of 2005's STL does all sort of validation, that's why they didn’t show up on 2003. I'm not set up for patch submission yet, but if somebody has time to review these changes that'd be greatly appreciated. Meanwhile

I need a command line tool to validate mp3 file(s).... just something that scans the file and looks for structural errors and reports it. background, I've recovered a few 1000 MP3 files off a dying disk drive for a radio station, some of the other files I recovered had several K byte long blocks of zeros splatted in the middle where the dying drive did bad sector remapping (SMART

Hola Jaap, I'm curious which version of the source are you working with? It sounds like you and I were working on the same problem yesterday, but I didn't see those particular compiler errors. (I saw a couple of other ones for which I submitted a patch). I did see errors like the ones you saw with the CVS LLVM 2.0 sources a while back, namely the missing < operator and the debug STL

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Pete Cooper via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2016, at 10:24 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > You've raised an important point here Pete, and while I disagree pretty > strongly with it (regardless of whether Lanai makes sense or not), I'm glad > that you've