search for: operandi

This is not your usual "so when is CO 7.8.xxxx coming out?" posts. I'm just curious if the CentOS team is affected by our current world conditions, or is work-from-home modus operandi for the team? (In other words, "when is CO 7.8.xxxx coming out?") -- *Matt Phelps* *Information Technology Specialist, Systems Administrator* (Computation Facility, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory) Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian 60 Garden Street | MS 39...

John, I have looked at the SAFECode and thought following sould work if (isa<Constant>(I.getOperand(0))) { Out << "*** operand 0 is a constant ******"; if (Instruction *operandI = dyn_cast<Instruction>(I.getOperand(0))) { Out << "********operand is an instruction ****"; if (GetElementPtrInst *gepI = dyn_cast<GetElementPtrInst>(operandI)) { Out << "*** operand is a gep instruction ********";...

On 1/21/2011 10:46 PM, Surinder wrote: > John, > > I have looked at the SAFECode and thought following sould work > > if (isa<Constant>(I.getOperand(0))) > { Out<< "*** operand 0 is a constant ******"; > if (Instruction *operandI = dyn_cast<Instruction>(I.getOperand(0))) > { Out<< "********operand is an instruction ****"; > if (GetElementPtrInst *gepI = > dyn_cast<GetElementPtrInst>(operandI)) > { Out<< "*** operand is a gep instr...

...on't log in any domain server 3. The users simply map their shares at the Samba server, using their samba usernames and password. The future: 1. We have a main LDAP server (Windows 2008 Active Directory) that we want to integrate with our Samba server. 2. We would like to keep the "modus operandi" of the usage (i.e.: The users simply point to their shares, enter their usernames/passwords and access their files). 3. We don't want to have the "samba usernames/passwords". Instead, we want the Samba to authenticate using the Active Directory. The final situation would be: 1...

...t; exploit. In that situation pcheck gives them a "crow bar" they did not have before. > A vulnerable library is a vulnerable library. Fix the library, don?t > invent reasons to fix all the other programs on the system because the > library is vulnerable. I would say the modus operandi should be to eliminate all known attack vectors, including such a powerful one as the described "heap spraying". > 2. There?s no such thing as SUID libraries. I never argued there are. > So, how is this hypothetical library of yours going to gain > privileges that the execu...

...rinder wrote: >> >> John, >> >> I have looked at the SAFECode and thought following sould work >> >>        if (isa<Constant>(I.getOperand(0))) >>        { Out<<  "*** operand 0 is a constant ******"; >>          if (Instruction *operandI = >> dyn_cast<Instruction>(I.getOperand(0))) >>            { Out<<  "********operand is an instruction ****"; >>              if (GetElementPtrInst *gepI = >> dyn_cast<GetElementPtrInst>(operandI)) >>                { Out<<  "***...

...lisade users 4007318 Aug 22 16:31 tommy.ogg -rw-r--r-- 1 palisade users 3989911 Aug 22 16:57 tommy.ogg.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 palisade users 3991638 Aug 22 16:41 tom.mp3 -rw-r--r-- 1 palisade users 3959108 Aug 22 16:48 tom.mp3.gz Sincerely, Nelson Rush "<Operandi> well flog me like a misbehaving circus clown" --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/

Hello, all; I get an unexpected result when trying to plot a probability histogram with R1.9.1 on windows xp: #with the following code: > x <- runif(100,0,1) > hist(x) > hist(x, freq=F) > h <- hist(x, freq=F) > summary(h) # Length Class Mode #breaks 11 -none- numeric #counts 10 -none- numeric #intensities 10 -none- numeric #density 10

On 1/20/2011 10:02 PM, Surinder wrote: > When I compile C programs into llvm, it produces load instructions in > two different flavours. > > (1) %8 = load i8** %bp, align 8 > > (2) %1 = load i8* getelementptr inbounds ([4 x i8]* @.str, i64 0, > i64 0), align 1 > > I know that %bp in first case and the entire "getelementptr inbounds > ([4 x i8]* @.str, i64

...gt; netvsc uses vf_netdev, are you OK with this? Or another option is 'passthru' >> >> No. The netdev could be any netdevice. It does not have to be a "VF". >> >> I think "stolen" is quite appropriate since it describes the modus >> >> operandi. The bypass master steals some netdevice according to some >> >> match. >> >> >> >> But I don't insist on "stolen". Just sounds right. >> > >> >We are adding VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP as a new feature bit to enable this feature, So i th...

...gt; netvsc uses vf_netdev, are you OK with this? Or another option is 'passthru' >> >> No. The netdev could be any netdevice. It does not have to be a "VF". >> >> I think "stolen" is quite appropriate since it describes the modus >> >> operandi. The bypass master steals some netdevice according to some >> >> match. >> >> >> >> But I don't insist on "stolen". Just sounds right. >> > >> >We are adding VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP as a new feature bit to enable this feature, So i th...

When I compile C programs into llvm, it produces load instructions in two different flavours. (1) %8 = load i8** %bp, align 8 (2) %1 = load i8* getelementptr inbounds ([4 x i8]* @.str, i64 0, i64 0), align 1 I know that %bp in first case and the entire "getelementptr inbounds ([4 x i8]* @.str, i64 0, i64 0)" in second case can be obtained by dump'ing I.getOperand(0)

...ibility to regress something. We end up in a world where either we never make any forward progress, or where developers hoard up trivial improvements they can use to "negate" the regressions caused by real development work. Neither of these is a desirable direction. The existing modus operandi on X86 and other targets has been that there is a core of functionality (what is represented by the LLVM regression tests and test-suite) that all developers implicitly agree to avoid regressing on set of "blessed" configurations. We are deliberately cautious in expanding the range of fu...

...ssions should have been had in the mailing list, not behind closed doors. Agreeing to implementations in private is asking to get bad reviews in public, as the SVE process has shown *over and over again*. I don't understand why, after so many problems for so many years, this is still the modus operandi... > The basic argument was that they didn't believe the value gained from enabling VLA autovectorization was worth the added complexity in maintaining the codebase. They were open to changing their minds if we could demonstrate sufficient demand for the feature. In that case, the current...

...vf_netdev, are you OK with this? Or another option is 'passthru' > >> >> No. The netdev could be any netdevice. It does not have to be a "VF". > >> >> I think "stolen" is quite appropriate since it describes the modus > >> >> operandi. The bypass master steals some netdevice according to some > >> >> match. > >> >> > >> >> But I don't insist on "stolen". Just sounds right. > >> > > >> >We are adding VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP as a new feature bit to ena...

...iarizing myself with the basic Rspec tool set. A lot of this is new to me, and seems very strange. Most of the projects I work on involve translating known algorithms on known data types into working code in some language, and there are usually test cases given in the books. So my typical modus operandi is to punch the whole algorithm into a file, punch the test case into another file, and iterate until everything works. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P) http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have give...

Graham Hunter <Graham.Hunter at arm.com> writes: > We (Arm) have had more off-line discussions with some members of the > community and they have expressed some reservations on adding scalable > vectors as a first class type. They have proposed an alternative to > enable support for C-level intrinsics and autovectorization for SVE. Can we get a summary of those discussions?

Dear list, I'd like to use multiple imputations to try and save a somewhat badly mangled dataset (lousy data collection, worse than lousy monitoring, you know that drill... especially when I am consulted for the first time about one year *after* data collection). My dataset has 231 observations of 53 variables, of which only a very few has no missing data. Most variables have 5-10% of

...o it because noexec, so?now what? What has our nefarious attacker gained? >> A vulnerable library is a vulnerable library. Fix the library, don?t >> invent reasons to fix all the other programs on the system because the >> library is vulnerable. > > I would say the modus operandi should be to eliminate all known attack > vectors, including such a powerful one as the described "heap spraying?. That sounds like an esthetic argument, not a logical argument. ?Heap spraying? sounds scary, so let?s fix it! What I want to know is, what can you *do* with a sprayed heap c...

Hi, Need some advice on installing postfix in CentOS4. Which is better, installing by yum or rpm -i or by compiling from source code? What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of each. Thanks. junji linux registered user #253162 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com