search for: officialize

I'm getting the following when building llvm-gcc with an optimized set of LLVM libraries: /ptmp/dag/build.llvm-gcc-4.2.trunk.official.opt/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/./gcc/xgcc -B/ptmp/dag/build.llvm-gcc-4.2.trunk.official.opt/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/./gcc/ -B/cray/iss/compiler/cost/tools/llvm-tools/llvm/install.trunk.official.opt/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/

David Greene wrote: > I'm getting the following when building llvm-gcc with an optimized set of > LLVM libraries: > > /ptmp/dag/build.llvm-gcc-4.2.trunk.official.opt/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/./gcc/xgcc > -B/ptmp/dag/build.llvm-gcc-4.2.trunk.official.opt/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/./gcc/ >

On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:09:27 -0600 greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) wrote: > Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> writes: > > > What are we left with then? Only 4.2 and 4.3? > > On SLES 10.1 at least. I think it is highly platform dependent. Also keep in mind that llvm-gcc uses the 4.2 unwinder, so if you are seeing EH failures maybe the EH info generated by

Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> writes: >> > Which regression tests are failing with LLVM 2.8 and GCC 4.4.x? >> >> Too many to list. > > Can you give me 2 or 3 examples (that fail with LLVM 2.8 and GCC 4.4 > but work with LLVM 2.8 and GCC 4.3), also I'd like to know how they > fail. > If I have some time I'll check with my 4.4 to see if

Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> writes: > What are we left with then? Only 4.2 and 4.3? On SLES 10.1 at least. I think it is highly platform dependent. > I only use 4.4 since a while, and it works fairly well. On what platform? > Are you sure it is not a bug in the regression tests themselves > (strict-aliasing bugs, etc.)? No, I'm not sure. > Which

On Wednesday 10 October 2007 12:53, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Evan Cheng wrote: > > I am turning 32-bit add into 32-bit LEA on x86-64 but that's > > perfectly legal. Both > > leal (%esi,%edi), %eax > > leal (%rsi,%rdi), %eax > > are legal assembly. It's just the former requires a 67H prefix due to > > the 32-bit address size. >

Sooner or later everyone needs to install a package that is not included on the official installation CDs/DVD. Until now I just used rpmseek.com and Rpmfind.Net but of course this is far from optimal for security and compatibility to reasons. So what is the recommended way to get and install "non official" packages that are not part of the repository?! Thorsten

Since I just experienced another crash on R 1.4.0 for Windows (this time is on plot(x, y) after using gls() of package nlme) and am told (thanks Andy) that is might due to the "official" version of binary copy. I am also told that "The one provided by Prof. Ripley is known to work. This has been asked several times on the list." Then, I am wondering when the

Hello, Re: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7-Beta/html/7.3_Release_Notes/bug_fixes_general_updates.html Are there any upcoming plans for turning off the use of legacy interface names in the next official CentOS 7.x AMI? Currently, both the official RHEL 7.3 GA AMI and the latest available official CentOS-7 x86_64 AMI use legacy interface names via either:

Hi list I am trying to install Samba4 on a hosted server but haven't been successful yet. Environment: Hosted Server with official .net domain. OS is Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Server 64-bit. DNS for domain is registred with provider's name servers. Installed Samba with Bind backend following the how-to on http://www.matrix44.net/cms/notes/gnulinux/samba-4-ad-domain-with-ubuntu-12-04 [1] .

It should probably not be necessary in my case to compile a custom version of the Cortado applet-the official binary works fine, and may be advantageous over a locally-compiled version (regarding compatibility with 1.1-era JVMs), as was mentioned in a previous message. My interest was to include the corresponding source code when distributing the official binary (i.e. as would be required for

On Wednesday 10 October 2007 17:12, David Greene wrote: > This particular problem is gone (thanks!) but I'm having other troubles. > I'm tracking those down now. This is the current problem: [x86_64-off-dbg]: ./xgcc -B./ -B/install.official.debug/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ -isystem

Hi, I'm working on building a cluster on AWS atop CentOS 7. For development, I've been working in the eu-west-1 (Ireland) region, where the AWS MarketPlace provides an official CentOS 7 AMI (ami-e4ff5c93). However, the production deployment is taking place in AWS's GovCloud region for regulatory reasons, and there, I couldn't find an official CentOS 7 AMI. Are there plans to

Hi everyone, I just built the latest llvm/llvm-gcc yesterday and got a ton of test failures that look like the following ([i686-off-opt] means an i686 Release build of official -- unmodified -- sources): [i686-off-opt]: ./llvm.official/projects/llvm-test/DiffOutput.sh "/ptmp/dag/build.llvm.official/Release/bin/fpcmp -r 0.016" llc sse.isamax [i686-off-opt]: ******************** TEST

Hello everybody, I would like to ask whether there will be new official version of nouveau because I currently have to build my own nouveau package to have a working multi-screen environment. This is due to some fixes that were applied after the 1.0.12 release. As I guess that I am not the only one that uses a distribution that relies on the (most recent) official releases rather than more or

There are ''official'' plan (by Samba Team, but also by Microsoft) to officially ''decommission'' support for NT-like domains? Thanks. -- dott. Marco Gaiarin GNUPG Key ID: 240A3D66 Associazione ``La Nostra Famiglia'' http://www.lanostrafamiglia.it/ Polo FVG - Via della Bontà, 7 - 33078 - San Vito al Tagliamento (PN)

R.framework-Versions-Resources-library-grDevices-libs-cairo_20150120.tgz in http://sourceforge.net/projects/outmodedbonsai/files/R/ are dropped in replacement to the cairo.so's in the official R binaries (2.15.3, 3.0.3, 3.1.2). updated to cairo-1.12.18 and freetype-2.5.4. The official R binaries' were built with early freetype 2.4.x and cairo 1.11(?) and had a number of issues with some

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Evan Cheng wrote: > I am turning 32-bit add into 32-bit LEA on x86-64 but that's > perfectly legal. Both > leal (%esi,%edi), %eax > leal (%rsi,%rdi), %eax > are legal assembly. It's just the former requires a 67H prefix due to > the 32-bit address size. > > This does point to a performance problem in the 3 address conversion > code (which I

There used to be a list of all the llvm ports and the status. The x86 was the only compiler that was a "full port". We are preparing to add out native linux compiler to the official build bots. Are there various official "gating" criteria for different levels of llvm "doneness" so to speak? There is a matrix I see in

There''s been a lot of discussion on the #merb channel lately about official plugins. I''m starting this thread and hoping to get some discussion as to what these official plugins should be, at least in the lead-up to revision 1.0 So far as I have seen on the #merb these are: ORM''s merb_active_record merb_sequel merb_datamapper and merb_form_controls - there is a