search for: maxxx

Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "maxxx".

Did you mean: maxx
2003 Sep 27
2
Static/shared linking woes
...ed reference to `lsa_ds_get_pipe_fns' (...and another screenful of other errors followed...) How should I compile/link it, then, to avoid getting either 20-meg binaries, or linking errors?? -- |\ /| \~~~/ \~~~/ WWW: http://none :( | \/ | /\ > < \~/ > < E-M: maxxx[at]rpg.pl |____| /__\ /___\ /_\ /___\ ICQ: 3146019 "After you vomit, you rinse your mouse and if you can eat, eat." (Japanese tips)
2003 Sep 28
1
Bug? Crashed at the very first connection attempt...
...] #6 smbd [0x815a5cb] #7 smbd(initialize_password_db+0xe) [0x815a952] #8 smbd(main+0x333) [0x81bd8f3] #9 /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xa4) [0x4008ebb4] #10 smbd(chroot+0x35) [0x80717c1] -- |\ /| \~~~/ \~~~/ WWW: http://none :( | \/ | /\ > < \~/ > < E-M: maxxx[at]rpg.pl |____| /__\ /___\ /_\ /___\ ICQ: 3146019 Who is General Failure and why is he reading my disk?
2018 Jul 26
3
RFC: What is the real behavior for the minnum/maxnum intrinsics?
...MAX implement the new minimum / maximum exactly. 2. FMINNM / FMAXNM implement minimumNumber / maximumNumber if we can prove no sNaNs are present. If sNaN may be present, we need to canonicalize each argument first. X86: 1. AFAIK there’s no trivial instruction for minimum / maximum, because MINxx / MAXxx return the second argument if either is NaN. So this will look like a compare + min/max + select, I think. 2. The new AVX-512 VRANGExx can be used to implement minimumNumber / maximumNumber if we can prove no sNaNs are present. If sNaN may be present, we need to canonicalize each argument first. Pr...
2003 Nov 13
1
another bug?
I think... When using Samba 3, and a Win2K client, I mapped a network drive onto the client from the server, (again, RH9) and proceeded to copy a profile into the network drive. It created the initial folder and then said it could not copy the profile, due to invalid folder name. The folder name I used is: 'profile'... the path was F:\profile\, is wondering if the error came up
2018 Jul 23
2
RFC: What is the real behavior for the minnum/maxnum intrinsics?
Hi, The specification for the llvm.minnum/llvm.maxnum intrinsics is too unclear right now to usefully optimize. There are two problems. First the expected behavior for signaling NaNs needs to be clarified. Second, whether the returned value is expected to be canonicalized (as if by llvm.canonicalize). Currently according to the LangRef: Follows the IEEE-754 semantics for minNum, which also