search for: prosimi

Peoplefone AG jest firm? oferuj?c? us?ugi telekomunikacyjne oparte na technologii Voice over IP (VoIP) w wyj?tkowo niskich stawkach. Peoplefone jest certyfikowanym partnerem firm Siemens<http://www.siemens.ch/index.jsp?sdc_p=c175fi1012637lmno1012637psuz1&sdc_sid=1113876080&>i AVM/FRITZ!Box <http://www.fritz-shop.ch/>. W zwi?zku z naszym dynamicznym rozwojem, do nowo tworzonej

Hello Teresa, > Without -flto, a.o ends up with a reference to __exp_finite, That’s correct. > which also would not be satifisfied out of libexp.a. That’s not correct. Even if libexp.a would have __exp_finite, it wouldn’t be resolved from libexp.a, because of the behavior described in my first message. > Do you also have an implementation of __exp_finite in your libexp.a? No, I don’t

> I'm trying to understand how the non-LTO case is supposed to work non-LTO case works because when linker starts it’s job all the llvm intrinsics are already lowered. > Right, which is why I am suggesting that it might be appropriate to build with -fno-builtin (or -fno-builtin-exp) here – > this solves the LTO issue as there will no longer be an llvm intrinsic in the bitcode Yes, I

+pcc for thoughts On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Bakhvalov, Denis <denis.bakhvalov at intel.com > wrote: > Hello Teresa, > > > > > Without -flto, a.o ends up with a reference to __exp_finite, > > That’s correct. > > > > > which also would not be satifisfied out of libexp.a. > > That’s not correct. Even if libexp.a would have __exp_finite, it

Dear community, Recently I discovered that llvm gold linker plugin (LLVMgold.so) doesn't add llvm instrinsics symbols to the linker symbol table. I do not claim that something is necessary wrong, just want to share my observations with the community. Brief summary If I create a static library with a custom version of 'exp()' math function and link it as follows: $

A couple questions/notes so I can understand better: Without -flto, a.o ends up with a reference to __exp_finite, which also would not be satifisfied out of libexp.a. Do you also have an implementation of __exp_finite in your libexp.a? Can you build with -fno-builtin, or -fno-builtin-exp etc? That results in a reference to __exp_finite in the .o bitcode (which of course has the same issue I

Hi all, Many of us find ourselves spending a great chunk of time comparing LLVM IR dumps at various stages of compilation pipeline or after a given optimization pass. Said process can be extremely laborious, and this is especially true when comparing shaders or compute modules. Important semantic differences are often difficult to spot because of the irregular naming and ordering of instructions.

Hi, I have problems with sieve fileinto and polish characters in folder names: # rule:[??????????????????] elsif anyof (header :contains "Subject" "??????????????????") { fileinto "INBOX/&AQUBBwEZAUIBRADzAVsBegF8AQQBBgEYAUEBQwDTAVoBeQF7-"; } dovecot log: Apr 5 15:17:42 mailer dovecot: lmtp(54203, test at test1.com): rmHVJHabfU+70wAA9hAjDg: sieve:

Hi, I am afraid I have a question to ask of you all. I have just completed setting up a mail server running on Ubuntu Server 10.04. It has postfix, dovecot 1.2.19, LDAP and squirrelmail as the webmail. I have also created virtual users accounts on the system through LDAP. I can send and receive mails which is great. Now, what I am trying to do is to set up a vacation auto-reply on the

Hi, I'm from Intel compiler department. I am proposing the integration of a backend targeting Nios II processor architecture. Nios II is a 32-bit general-purpose RISC processor core designed specifically for the Altera family of FPGAs. All information at about Nios II can be found at Altera website https://www.altera.com/products/processors/support.html, including the current ISA

Hi, I have a problem with setting up quota usage tracking for domains. Problem is, that domain quota is always based on only one user in domain, the last one on whom behalf any operation was performed. To recreate this situation, one has only to perform: doveadm quota recalc -u USER on a user, and the domain quota takes the value of this user quota. Have anyone a clue what could cause this

Currently if user is 1MB under quota and someone tries to deliver mail that is over 1MB, Dovecot rejects the mail. But smaller mails aren't rejected probably for days. So user might not even realize that they didn't receive one of the mails. Also having a user "almost over quota" is a rather strange state I think. So what do you think about v2.2 allowing delivery of one last