search for: recoginz

hi, I'm just recoginze that dovecot contains an rpm spec file. unfortunately it's not too useful since an rpm -ta dovecot-.x.y.tar.gz can't be used since just the dovecot.spec.in is in the tarbar and not the actual spec file (which is in this from not useful in the above form). anyway here is my patch to the...

Hi, Very few inline assembly are supported for the X86 backend. As I see from X86ISelLowering.cpp, only bswap, rorw, xchgl and simple register selections (e.g. {=r10}) LLVM JIT can recoginze. But for PPC backend, I am not sure why PPC JIT see all inline assembly IRs as an error. Ding-Yong On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi 陳韋任, > > > It seems PPC JIT does not recognize inline assembly. > > For example, when I gi...

From: Siwei Liu <loseweigh at gmail.com> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 19:32:05 -0700 > And I assume everyone here understands the use case for live > migration (in the context of providing cloud service) is very > different, and we have to hide the netdevs. If not, I'm more than > happy to clarify. I think you still need to clarify. netdevs are netdevs. If they have special

From: Siwei Liu <loseweigh at gmail.com> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 19:32:05 -0700 > And I assume everyone here understands the use case for live > migration (in the context of providing cloud service) is very > different, and we have to hide the netdevs. If not, I'm more than > happy to clarify. I think you still need to clarify. netdevs are netdevs. If they have special

I have Ruby installed & working but I''ve been having all kinds of trouble installing Rails on Win XP. For example, if I just do the "gem install rails" command, it does not recoginze gem as a proper command. If I cd into the ruby\bin directory, it does but then cannot find the local rails file. If I specify the full path for rails, it finds the file & begins the install but errors out complaining, "No metadata found!" All this leads me to believe I need to...

...le that I have been using for years: [atest] . . "valid users = auser" . . If I remove this line, I get connected to the share, however, of course I lose any username protection. I have tried using write list = or even admin users = ... All to no avail. The log file indicates seems to recoginze my id but then finally at the end gets some type of deny message: [2006/07/11 15:38:34, 2] lib/access.c:check_access(324) Allowed connection from (127.0.0.1) [2006/07/11 15:39:37, 2] auth/auth.c:check_ntlm_password(309) check_ntlm_password: authentication for user [auser] -> [auser] -&gt...

Hi 陳韋任, > It seems PPC JIT does not recognize inline assembly. > For example, when I give LLVM IR belows to PPC JIT, > > %0 = tail call i32* asm "", "={r10}"() nounwind ;<i32*> [#uses=1] > > it complaints that inline assembly is not a supported > instruction. x86 JIT works fine, however. I'm surprised this worked with the x86 JIT - I

...t of this approach, rather than being neccessary for users to be aware of. All what the user needs to deal with is one single interface, and that's what they care about. It's more a trouble than help when they see 2 extra interfaces are present. Management tools in the old distros don't recoginze them and try to bring up those extra interfaces for its own. Various odd warnings start to spew out, and there's a lot of caveats for the users to get around... On the other hand, if we "teach" those cloud users to update the userspace toolstack just for trading a feature they don...

Hi, all It seems PPC JIT does not recognize inline assembly. For example, when I give LLVM IR belows to PPC JIT, %0 = tail call i32* asm "", "={r10}"() nounwind ; <i32*> [#uses=1] it complaints that inline assembly is not a supported instruction. x86 JIT works fine, however. Is there a reason that makes PPC JIT not support inline assembly? Currently, we

...rather than being neccessary > for users to be aware of. All what the user needs to deal with is one > single interface, and that's what they care about. It's more a trouble > than help when they see 2 extra interfaces are present. Management > tools in the old distros don't recoginze them and try to bring up > those extra interfaces for its own. Various odd warnings start to spew > out, and there's a lot of caveats for the users to get around... > > On the other hand, if we "teach" those cloud users to update the > userspace toolstack just for trad...

...le that I have been using for years: [atest] . . "valid users = auser" . . If I remove this line, I get connected to the share, however, of course I lose any username protection. I have tried using write list = or even admin users = ... All to no avail. The log file indicates seems to recoginze my id but then finally at the end gets some type of deny message: [2006/07/11 15:38:34, 2] lib/access.c:check_access(324) Allowed connection from (127.0.0.1) [2006/07/11 15:39:37, 2] auth/auth.c:check_ntlm_password(309) check_ntlm_password: authentication for user [auser] -> [auser] -&gt...

...g neccessary >> for users to be aware of. All what the user needs to deal with is one >> single interface, and that's what they care about. It's more a trouble >> than help when they see 2 extra interfaces are present. Management >> tools in the old distros don't recoginze them and try to bring up >> those extra interfaces for its own. Various odd warnings start to spew >> out, and there's a lot of caveats for the users to get around... >> >> On the other hand, if we "teach" those cloud users to update the >> userspace too...

Hi, I am trying to stream two different sources with two soundcards using liveice and icecast, all from single Linux box. Can anyone tell me if this is possible? I tried creating two sets in the liveice config file where I specified different devices. No erros but the latter source was streamed on both mount points. Running two instances of liveice talking to one instance of icecast failed.