search for: local_

...the guarantees provided by the language. It works using a set of heuristics (symbol name matching and relocation scanning). That's not only imprecise but it only works with certain languages and is slow due to the need to demangle symbols and scan relocations. It's also redundant with the (local_)unnamed_addr analysis already performed by LLVM. I implemented an alternative to this approach in clang and lld. It works by adding a section to each object file containing the indexes of the symbols which are address-significant (i.e. not (local_)unnamed_addr in IR). I used this implementation t...

.... It works using a set of heuristics (symbol name matching > > and relocation scanning). That's not only imprecise but it only works > with > > certain languages and is slow due to the need to demangle symbols and > scan > > relocations. It's also redundant with the (local_)unnamed_addr analysis > > already performed by LLVM. > > > > I implemented an alternative to this approach in clang and lld. It works > by > > adding a section to each object file containing the indexes of the > symbols > > which are address-significant (i.e. not...

...ided > by the language. It works using a set of heuristics (symbol name matching > and relocation scanning). That's not only imprecise but it only works with > certain languages and is slow due to the need to demangle symbols and scan > relocations. It's also redundant with the (local_)unnamed_addr analysis > already performed by LLVM. > > I implemented an alternative to this approach in clang and lld. It works by > adding a section to each object file containing the indexes of the symbols > which are address-significant (i.e. not (local_)unnamed_addr in IR). >...

...ided by the language. It works using a set of heuristics (symbol name > matching and relocation scanning). That's not only imprecise but it only > works with certain languages and is slow due to the need to demangle > symbols and scan relocations. It's also redundant with the > (local_)unnamed_addr analysis already performed by LLVM. > > I implemented an alternative to this approach in clang and lld. It works > by adding a section to each object file containing the indexes of the > symbols which are address-significant (i.e. not (local_)unnamed_addr in IR). > >...

...;>> matching >>> > and relocation scanning). That's not only imprecise but it only works >>> with >>> > certain languages and is slow due to the need to demangle symbols and >>> scan >>> > relocations. It's also redundant with the (local_)unnamed_addr analysis >>> > already performed by LLVM. >>> > >>> > I implemented an alternative to this approach in clang and lld. It >>> works by >>> > adding a section to each object file containing the indexes of the >>> symbols &...

...ristics (symbol name >> matching >> > and relocation scanning). That's not only imprecise but it only works >> with >> > certain languages and is slow due to the need to demangle symbols and >> scan >> > relocations. It's also redundant with the (local_)unnamed_addr analysis >> > already performed by LLVM. >> > >> > I implemented an alternative to this approach in clang and lld. It >> works by >> > adding a section to each object file containing the indexes of the >> symbols >> > which are a...

...;>> matching >>> > and relocation scanning). That's not only imprecise but it only works >>> with >>> > certain languages and is slow due to the need to demangle symbols and >>> scan >>> > relocations. It's also redundant with the (local_)unnamed_addr analysis >>> > already performed by LLVM. >>> > >>> > I implemented an alternative to this approach in clang and lld. It >>> works by >>> > adding a section to each object file containing the indexes of the >>> symbols &...

...gt;>>> > and relocation scanning). That's not only imprecise but it only works >>>> with >>>> > certain languages and is slow due to the need to demangle symbols and >>>> scan >>>> > relocations. It's also redundant with the (local_)unnamed_addr >>>> analysis >>>> > already performed by LLVM. >>>> > >>>> > I implemented an alternative to this approach in clang and lld. It >>>> works by >>>> > adding a section to each object file containing the...

...ided by the language. It works using a set of heuristics (symbol name > matching and relocation scanning). That's not only imprecise but it only > works with certain languages and is slow due to the need to demangle > symbols and scan relocations. It's also redundant with the > (local_)unnamed_addr analysis already performed by LLVM. > > I implemented an alternative to this approach in clang and lld. It works > by adding a section to each object file containing the indexes of the > symbols which are address-significant (i.e. not (local_)unnamed_addr in IR). > >...

...gt;>>> > and relocation scanning). That's not only imprecise but it only works >>>> with >>>> > certain languages and is slow due to the need to demangle symbols and >>>> scan >>>> > relocations. It's also redundant with the (local_)unnamed_addr >>>> analysis >>>> > already performed by LLVM. >>>> > >>>> > I implemented an alternative to this approach in clang and lld. It >>>> works by >>>> > adding a section to each object file containing the...

...> and relocation scanning). That's not only imprecise but it only >>>>> works with >>>>> > certain languages and is slow due to the need to demangle symbols >>>>> and scan >>>>> > relocations. It's also redundant with the (local_)unnamed_addr >>>>> analysis >>>>> > already performed by LLVM. >>>>> > >>>>> > I implemented an alternative to this approach in clang and lld. It >>>>> works by >>>>> > adding a section to each obj...

The patch changes flac_snprintf (in src/share/grabbag/snprintf.c) and its copy local_snprintf (src/libFLAC/metadata_iterators.c). It also adds flac_vsnprintf (src/share/grabbag/snprintf.c) and its copy local_vsnprintf (src/share/win_utf8_io/win_utf8_io.c). And it changes stats_print_info in src/flac/utils.c so it uses flac_vsnprintf instead of vsnprintf. Return value checking beco...

...local/libexec/dovecot/deliver -f ${sender} -d ${recipient} # postconf | grep dovecot smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot virtual_transport = dovecot # postconf | grep destination_recipient_limit default_destination_recipient_limit = 50 lmtp_destination_recipient_limit = $default_destination_recipient_limit local_destination_recipient_limit = 1 relay_destination_recipient_limit = $default_destination_recipient_limit smtp_destination_recipient_limit = $default_destination_recipient_limit virtual_destination_recipient_limit = $default_destination_recipient_limit Is "dovecot_destination_recipient_limit&qu...

...> > > 2018-02-07 12:45 GMT-08:00 Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com>: > >> >> >> On Feb 7, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > But it is interesting in general because according to the definition >> for local_unnamed_addr, the symbol has to be linkonce_odr to be auto hide >> as well. ThinLTO promotion can break that as well. >> >> What do you mean that the promotion can break that? >> >> The original description I found here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D20348 >> says tha...

Hi list, I have 7 virtual users in a sql database. I don't want any systemusers or local delivery using postfix. On the postfix side everything works fine as long as I use the 'local' delivery agent. But since I want to use dovecot's sieve functionality I set local_transport to dovecot. From now on Postfix seems to ignore local_* settings like local_recipient_maps. Here is my current configuration: log_timestamp: %Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S protocols: imaps managesieve login_dir: /var/run/dovecot/login login_executable(default): /usr/lib/dovecot/imap-login login_execu...

...en secret from /var/run/dovecot/auth-token-secret.dat Mar 06 19:28:02 auth: Debug: auth client connected (pid=5615) Mar 06 19:28:02 auth: Debug: client in: AUTH 1 PLAIN service=imap secured session=ggZPmsJmIoh/AAAB lip=127.0.0.1 rip=127.0.0.1 lport=993 rport=34850 local_ Mar 06 19:28:02 auth-worker(5617): Debug: Loading modules from directory: /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/auth Mar 06 19:28:02 auth-worker(5617): Debug: Module loaded: /usr/lib/dovecot/modules/auth/lib20_auth_var_expand_crypt.so Mar 06 19:28:02 auth-worker(5617): Debug: Module loaded: /usr/lib/dovecot/mod...

...;stevenwu at apple.com <mailto:stevenwu at apple.com>>: > > >> On Feb 7, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com <mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> > But it is interesting in general because according to the definition for local_unnamed_addr, the symbol has to be linkonce_odr to be auto hide as well. ThinLTO promotion can break that as well. >> >> What do you mean that the promotion can break that? >> >> The original description I found here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D20348 <https://reviews.llvm...

...om <mailto:stevenwu at apple.com>>: >> >> >>> On Feb 7, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com <mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> > But it is interesting in general because according to the definition for local_unnamed_addr, the symbol has to be linkonce_odr to be auto hide as well. ThinLTO promotion can break that as well. >>> >>> What do you mean that the promotion can break that? >>> >>> The original description I found here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D20348 <http...

...2:45 GMT-08:00 Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com>: >> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 7, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > But it is interesting in general because according to the definition >>> for local_unnamed_addr, the symbol has to be linkonce_odr to be auto hide >>> as well. ThinLTO promotion can break that as well. >>> >>> What do you mean that the promotion can break that? >>> >>> The original description I found here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D203...

...ings, Ozkan Sure there is, > Install debian, follow my howto and you will have success. > > Just, your using an .local domain, and thats a reserved name for apples > mDNS (zeroconf) > And should not be used. ( same for .lan ) > https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/FAQ#Can_I_Use_the_.local_ > Top-level_Domain_for_My_AD_DNS_Zone.3F > So the info is good, thats not the problem, finding it, is. > > Can you post your /etc/hosts and resolv.conf also to be sure these are ok. > And whats the running OS, thats a nice to know. > > Greetz, > > Louis > > > &gt...