search for: overboard

...ave a business customer in the U.S. (Michigan, AT&T Territory). I need to get 4 trunks into an asterisk Box. My intention is to use an Eicon Diva Server card with 2 BRI Circuits. The reason for this is that the business needs DID's on the trunks (20 of them). A full or fractional PRI is overboard for them, as they will never need more than four channels. I also don't really want to go with any kind of analog trunk for other reasons (Disconnect supervision, potential echo problems, etc..) I've called AT&T About a dozen times now, and no-one can tell me who to call in order to g...

All, With AsciiDoc, we can make use of some macros to cut down on some of the repetition in the driver man pages. I don't want to go overboard on this, though - I know that drivers aren't meant to be invoked directly by users anyway. I propose that we put all of the gory details into the nutupsdrv(8) man page (mostly there anyway), and just add a few basic options to the SYNOPSIS section of each driver page for completeness:...

I am trying to speed up some DB operations and perhaps have gone overboard with indexes. Does MySQL usually use only one index per query and simply match keys on the results of the indexed first part? For example: DELETE FROM tokens WHERE 6813946236211560448 <= fnv AND fnv < 6818449835838930944 AND updated_at<''2010-06-20 14:08:55'' AND occurre...

...gs we got by default when we created the ZFS pools that already give us the equivalent of O_SYNC? Is there something we should consider turning on or off with regard to ZFS? My feeling is that in an effort to make these write()''s so that they go completely to the disk, we may have gone overboard with one or more of the following: * setting O_SYNC on the file open() to affect the write()''s * using ZFS * using a storage array with a battery backed up read/write cache Can we eliminate one or more of these and still get the file integrity we want? PRD;IANOTA Regards,...

...lete non- starter to bring in the 1600 or 5400 headers. As for the 340, for an highly replaceable library comprising 1% of our LOC to bloat the source file count in our tree by 20%—after using a script to extract a perfect transitive dependency closure—well, I was on the verge of tossing it overboard. I can't blame Chris for his reticence to add such nonsense to LLVM, as it only serves to slow builds and source control operations for all. That said, there are some parts of boost which are well-structured with few or minimal dependencies—like shared_pointer. I feel there's not a...

...- and I need to copy it there How: Similar to 'cleanup' we could have a script 'postinstall' in the top-level directory, and if present, R would execute it. As I'm the one with the itch, I'd be happy to work on code towards implementing this -- but before I go overboard with it, I'd love to hear comments, suggestions, questions, ... It is worthwhile? Is it feasible? What did I overlook? Thanks, Dirk -- Three out of two people have difficulties with fractions.

...fe even if my system is comprimised. This is a a bit theoretical, but I was wondering if you thought there was a way to configure my server to do this without writing a lot of source code. Also can I have opinions as to whether this enhances my security, or if there is a way (without going too far overboard) to enhance it even further, and still give me the flexibility to use a standard e-mail client. My goal is to prevent even someone with root access from reading e-mail on my machine. Thanks again for your efforts. I have installed OpenSSL and am reading through the documentation now. Daniel Zen

...er wrote: > In order to get more familiar with the llvm sources I've recently > decided to try to add support for the always_inline and noline function > attributes. I believe it is better to let the compiler decide when or not to inline a function. Most of the times a developer goes overboard with inlining and ends up with a lot of duplicated code that performs worse (this happened in the company I used to work for). > While the core implementation does not look very complicated both on the > gcc and llvm side it seems that there are no provisions in the bytecode > to actual...

...w path, causing unacceptable slowdowns. > [...] > > Clang used to generate narrower loads and stores for bit-fields, but a > long time ago it was intentionally changed to generate wider loads > and stores, IIRC by Chandler. There are some cases where I think the > “new” code goes overboard, but in this case I don’t particularly have > an issue with the wider loads and stores. I guess we could make a > best-effort attempt to stick to the storage-unit size when the > bit-fields break evenly on a boundary. But mostly I think the frontend’s > responsibility ends with it gen...

...a problem. And that's a problem you'd have whether they're designed as intrinsics taking ints or as new instructions and/or types. You probably won't even need new optimization passes; just add some switch cases to the ones that are already there. Of course, you shouldn't go overboard with the intrinsics; for example, I imagine that fixed-point types can just use 'icmp' for comparisons since they're really just scaled integers. So only add the ones you actually need, if only because it's less work both when implementing them and when updating the optimizers to su...

On 2018-05-16 00:34, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev wrote: > Vectorization goes overboard because the throughput cost model used by > the > vectorizers doesn't match the 6 IR instructions that correspond to 1 > x86 > rotate instruction. Instead, we have: > > [...] > > The broken cost model also affects unrolling and inlining. Size costs > are > ove...

...th, causing unacceptable slowdowns. > > [...] > > Clang used to generate narrower loads and stores for bit-fields, but a > long time ago it was intentionally changed to generate wider loads > and stores, IIRC by Chandler. There are some cases where I think the > “new” code goes overboard, but in this case I don’t particularly have > an issue with the wider loads and stores. I guess we could make a > best-effort attempt to stick to the storage-unit size when the > bit-fields break evenly on a boundary. But mostly I think the frontend’s > responsibility ends with it gener...

...e intended use cases. We shouldn't go as far as to tell programmers what library versions they must build, except that they should always include a fallback version if no optimized library can be selected. Describing the interactions with IFUNCs also makes sense. But I think we should not go overboard with this. Historically, we've done not such a great job with documenting toolchain features, I know, and we should do better now. I will try to write something helpful, but it should still match the relative importance of this feature. > It's also required to provide a (extensive?) l...

Thanks for writing this up. I'd like to have this intrinsic too. Another argument for having the intrinsic is shown in PR37426: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37426 Vectorization goes overboard because the throughput cost model used by the vectorizers doesn't match the 6 IR instructions that correspond to 1 x86 rotate instruction. Instead, we have: $ opt 37426prevectorize.ll -S -cost-model -analyze ... Cost Model: Found an estimated cost of 1 for instruction: %and = and i32 %cond,...

Hi, I have a router running BGP and OSPF (bird) on FreeBSD. Are there any best practises one can take in order to protect the network from DDoS attacks. I know this isn't easy. But I would like to secure my network as much as possible. Even if I'am not able to prevent or block a ddos I would like to get some info (snmp trap parhaps) regarding the attack. Then I can contact my ISP or

...domain without a problem, now I cannot do that > ( I've change quite a lot parameters in /etc/samba/smb.conf ). Can > someone guide me in some way ( more exhaustive than samba-PDC- > howto ... ). GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR !!!!!!!! > > These are my parameters .... Your smb.conf is way overboard. I know you've listed the output of testparm but that is really very inconsiderate. You're wasting the space on the list and most people just skip such long rants. However, allow me to cut your smb.conf to the very essentials and fix what deviates from my working smb.conf: [global] wor...

...18 May 2008 09:02, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > As for the 340, for an highly replaceable library comprising 1% of our > LOC to bloat the source file count in our tree by 20%—after using a > script to extract a perfect transitive dependency closure—well, I was > on the verge of tossing it overboard. I can't blame Chris for his > reticence to add such nonsense to LLVM, as it only serves to slow > builds and source control operations for all. Totally agree that we should not be pulling boost into the source tree. But I will reassert my point that using Boost as a library can be a go...

Hi Chris, Thanks a lot for a detailed opinion and explanation! It really answers the original question, without going to far into political discussions about boost and generic allocators pros/cons aspects. ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ---- > Von: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> > An: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Gesendet: Sonntag, den 18. Mai

...at Joel was originally trying to fix, until I stuck my nose into > it.) > > Directive Descriptions Based On Conceptual Model > ------------------------------------------------ > > Given the conceptual model, all directives can be defined in terms of > it. This is possibly going overboard with the formalism but hey, we're > all compiler geeks here. > > CHECK: Scans the search range for a pattern match. Fails if no match > is found. The end of the match range becomes the start of the search > range for subsequent directives. > > CHECK-SAME: Like CHECK, plus...

...G matches. That's the bug that Joel was originally trying to fix, until I stuck my nose into it.) Directive Descriptions Based On Conceptual Model ------------------------------------------------ Given the conceptual model, all directives can be defined in terms of it. This is possibly going overboard with the formalism but hey, we're all compiler geeks here. CHECK: Scans the search range for a pattern match. Fails if no match is found. The end of the match range becomes the start of the search range for subsequent directives. CHECK-SAME: Like CHECK, plus there must be zero newlines prior...