search for: prerequisit

...for an implicit rule for 'all'. No implicit rule found for 'all'. Considering target file 'hello.c32'. File 'hello.c32' does not exist. Looking for an implicit rule for 'hello.c32'. Trying pattern rule with stem 'hello'. Trying implicit prerequisite 'hello.elf'. Trying pattern rule with stem 'hello'. Trying implicit prerequisite 'hello.elf'. Looking for a rule with intermediate file 'hello.elf'. Avoiding implicit rule recursion. Trying pattern rule with stem 'hello'. Trying implicit...

Hi: I've been seeing intermittent build failures with the extlinux target, and I believe I've tracked it down to a VPATH issue. See this make -d log: Finished prerequisites of target file `extlinux'. Prerequisite `extlinux.o' is newer than target `extlinux'. Prerequisite `setadv.o' is newer than target `extlinux'. Prerequisite `extlinux_bss_bin.o' is newer than target `extlinux'. Prerequisite `extlinux_sys_bin.o' i...

...hen you can iterate over the >> functions in any order that you want. >> > > I had considered that, but my FunctionPass depends on other passes > processing the functions first: > Two things to consider: 1) The PassManager isn't currently designed to schedule prerequisite *transform* passes (like UnifyFunctionExitNodes). If your pass requires that another transform pass be executed first, then the PassManager must be explicitly told (via the PassManager.add() method) to run that pass first. If you're running your pass via the opt tool, then it means that...

On 7/9/20 12:08 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:37:53AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: >> Since .prepare is called before client negotiation has completed, >> filters have an additional burden to ensure prerequisite functions are >> called in order to avoid triggering assertions in backend.c. >> >> See also: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1855330, >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2020-July/msg00041.html >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@re...

On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:05 PM, John Criswell wrote: > If you write your pass as a ModulePass, then you can iterate over the > functions in any order that you want. I had considered that, but my FunctionPass depends on other passes processing the functions first: void MyPass::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<UnifyFunctionExitNodes>();

...issues. make[3]: Entering directory `/home/gene/s/g/bios/memdump' gcc_ok.6333.tmp:1: warning: NUL character seen; rest of line ignored gcc_ok.6333.tmp:1: *** missing separator. Stop. make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/gene/s/g/bios/memdump' make[2]: *** [memdump] Error 2 2) For recursive prerequisites, is it better to list the directory as a prerequisite (simple and current approach) or would it be better to have a more complex set of rules like the following: --In com32/Makefile: lib/libcom32.c32 lib/libcom32min.a lib/libcom32core.a: lib libutil/libutil.c32: libutil --In com32/rosh/Makefile...

...;>> functions in any order that you want. >>> >> >> I had considered that, but my FunctionPass depends on other passes >> processing the functions first: >> > > Two things to consider: > > 1) The PassManager isn't currently designed to schedule prerequisite > *transform* passes (like UnifyFunctionExitNodes). If your pass requires > that another transform pass be executed first, then the PassManager must > be explicitly told (via the PassManager.add() method) to run that pass > first. If you're running your pass via the opt tool, the...

Since .prepare is called before client negotiation has completed, filters have an additional burden to ensure prerequisite functions are called in order to avoid triggering assertions in backend.c. See also: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1855330, https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2020-July/msg00041.html Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> --- docs/nbdkit-filter.pod | 18 ++++++...

...red >> gcc_ok.6333.tmp:1: *** missing separator. Stop. >> make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/gene/s/g/bios/memdump' >> make[2]: *** [memdump] Error 2 >> > > Oops. My bad. I wondered which was the error (the include or the gcc test rule) >> 2) For recursive prerequisites, is it better to list the directory as >> a prerequisite (simple and current approach) or would it be better to >> have a more complex set of rules like the following: >> >> --In com32/Makefile: >> lib/libcom32.c32 lib/libcom32min.a lib/libcom32core.a: lib >> l...

Hi, I'm trying to configure samba 4.13.2 bot receive this messages Checking for dbus : not found vfs_snapper is enabled but prerequisite dbus-1 package not found. Use --with-shared-modules=!vfs_snapper to disable vfs_snapper support. (complete log in /srv/samba-4.13.2/bin/config.log) What is wrong?? try this: ./configure --enable-fhs --prefix=/usr --sbindir=/usr/sbin --bindir=/usr/bin --sysconfdir=/etc --localstatedir=/srv --mand...

Hi (1)In polr(), is there any way to calculate a pseudo analogue to the R^2. Just for use as a purely descriptive statistic of the goodness of fit? (2) And: what are the assumptions which must be fulfilled, so that the results of polr() (t-values, etc.) are valid? How can I test these prerequisites most easily: I have a three-level (ordered factor) response and four metric variables. many thanks Christoph -- Christoph Lehmann <christoph.lehmann at gmx.ch>

...before any of the subsequent installation/configuration tasks is done). Of course, I could add a list of "Require"d resources to all those tasks, but that''s not quite the way one would like to proceed; I''d rather like to have some way of marking one class or module as a prerequisite for all the others. Is there any way to do that? Thanks, Benjamin [1] http://mail.madstop.com/pipermail/puppet-users/2007-February/001342.html

On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:37:53AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > Since .prepare is called before client negotiation has completed, > filters have an additional burden to ensure prerequisite functions are > called in order to avoid triggering assertions in backend.c. > > See also: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1855330, > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2020-July/msg00041.html > > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> > ---...

...t without it, the 'std::to_string' definitions are not enabled! -----Original Message----- From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org] Sent: 06 July 2016 19:35 To: Martin.ORiordan at movidius.com Cc: LLVM Developers <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] GCC prerequisites for building LLVM head? On 6 July 2016 at 19:02, Martin J. O'Riordan <martin.oriordan at movidius.com> wrote: > I am actually getting the same problem with GCC v4.9.3 on CentOS, but for both Cygwin and Linux adding '-D_GLIBCXX_USE_C99' to the '-DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS:STRING=...

...- struct nouveau_drm *drm = nouveau_drm(dev); - - if (!drm->fbcon) - return; - - drm_kms_helper_poll_fini(dev); - nouveau_fbcon_accel_fini(dev); - nouveau_fbcon_destroy(dev, drm->fbcon); - kfree(drm->fbcon); - drm->fbcon = NULL; -} base-commit: ac04152253dccfb02dcedfa0c57443122cf79314 prerequisite-patch-id: 0aa359f6144c4015c140c8a6750be19099c676fb prerequisite-patch-id: c67e5d886a47b7d0266d81100837557fda34cb24 prerequisite-patch-id: 3f204510fcbf9530d6540bd8e6128cce598988b6 prerequisite-patch-id: 853c830f6fc7694a35722e80a62e44d747cea28b prerequisite-patch-id: 7e8f220a3d7008e1f00ce45284bfb720...

...AGS:STRING=' flag during configuration cured the problem. MartinO -----Original Message----- From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org] Sent: 06 July 2016 11:10 To: Martin.ORiordan at movidius.com Cc: LLVM Developers <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] GCC prerequisites for building LLVM head? On 6 July 2016 at 11:04, Martin J. O'Riordan <martin.oriordan at movidius.com> wrote: > Perhaps it is a broken Cygwin v4.9.3 package, but this is odd since the source should be identical for the Cygwin versus Linux distros? Looks like a broken package. I don...

...samba.org>) escribi?: > Hi, > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 17:04:58 -0500, Leo C via samba wrote: > > > Hi, > > I'm trying to configure samba 4.13.2 bot receive this messages > > > > Checking for dbus : not found > > vfs_snapper is enabled but prerequisite dbus-1 package not found. Use > > --with-shared-modules=!vfs_snapper to disable vfs_snapper support. > > (complete log in /srv/samba-4.13.2/bin/config.log) > > > > What is wrong?? > > try this: > > ./configure --enable-fhs --prefix=/usr --sbindir=/usr/sbin >...

...y `/home/gene/s/g/bios/memdump' > gcc_ok.6333.tmp:1: warning: NUL character seen; rest of line ignored > gcc_ok.6333.tmp:1: *** missing separator. Stop. > make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/gene/s/g/bios/memdump' > make[2]: *** [memdump] Error 2 > > > 2) For recursive prerequisites, is it better to list the directory as > a prerequisite (simple and current approach) or would it be better to > have a more complex set of rules like the following: > > --In com32/Makefile: > lib/libcom32.c32 lib/libcom32min.a lib/libcom32core.a: lib > libutil/libutil.c32: lib...

.../bios/memdump' > gcc_ok.6333.tmp:1: warning: NUL character seen; rest of line ignored > gcc_ok.6333.tmp:1: *** missing separator. Stop. > make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/gene/s/g/bios/memdump' > make[2]: *** [memdump] Error 2 > Oops. My bad. > > 2) For recursive prerequisites, is it better to list the directory as > a prerequisite (simple and current approach) or would it be better to > have a more complex set of rules like the following: > > --In com32/Makefile: > lib/libcom32.c32 lib/libcom32min.a lib/libcom32core.a: lib > libutil/libutil.c32: lib...

...; > - > - drm_kms_helper_poll_fini(dev); > - nouveau_fbcon_accel_fini(dev); > - nouveau_fbcon_destroy(dev, drm->fbcon); > - kfree(drm->fbcon); > - drm->fbcon = NULL; > -} > > base-commit: ac04152253dccfb02dcedfa0c57443122cf79314 > prerequisite-patch-id: 0aa359f6144c4015c140c8a6750be19099c676fb > prerequisite-patch-id: c67e5d886a47b7d0266d81100837557fda34cb24 > prerequisite-patch-id: 3f204510fcbf9530d6540bd8e6128cce598988b6 > prerequisite-patch-id: 853c830f6fc7694a35722e80a62e44d747cea28b > prerequisite-patch-id: 7e8f220a3d70...