search for: rephrases

I was mistaken as to needing the virtual address of the section , but really need to know the virtual address of the beginning of the function that contains the label whose symbol expression we have. I have a case where I the expression (MCSymbolRefExpr) is the offset from the beginning of the function. AsmPrinter::EmitJumpTableEntry() calls

On 08/19/2015 07:54 PM, Victor Kaplansky wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:43:46AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> >> On 08/16/2015 09:42 PM, Victor Kaplansky wrote: >>> Clarify general description of the mac, status and >>> max_virtqueue_pairs fields. Specifically, the old description is >>> vague about configuration layout and fields offsets when some of

On 08/16/2015 09:42 PM, Victor Kaplansky wrote: > Clarify general description of the mac, status and > max_virtqueue_pairs fields. Specifically, the old description is > vague about configuration layout and fields offsets when some of > the fields are non valid. > > Also clarify that validity of two status bits depends on two > different feature flags. > > Signed-off-by:

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:43:46AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 08/16/2015 09:42 PM, Victor Kaplansky wrote: > > Clarify general description of the mac, status and > > max_virtqueue_pairs fields. Specifically, the old description is > > vague about configuration layout and fields offsets when some of > > the fields are non valid. > > > > Also

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:43:46AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 08/16/2015 09:42 PM, Victor Kaplansky wrote: > > Clarify general description of the mac, status and > > max_virtqueue_pairs fields. Specifically, the old description is > > vague about configuration layout and fields offsets when some of > > the fields are non valid. > > > > Also

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 12:55 AM, peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 09 May 2015, at 02:53 , Henrik Bengtsson <henrik.bengtsson at ucsf.edu> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I spotted what looks like another(*) mistake in 'R Language >> Definition' on how subsetting should work. In Section 'Indexing >> matrices and

Clarify general description of the mac, status and max_virtqueue_pairs fields. Specifically, the old description is vague about configuration layout and fields offsets when some of the fields are non valid. Also clarify that validity of two status bits depends on two different feature flags. Signed-off-by: Victor Kaplansky <victork at redhat.com> --- content.tex | 42

On 2020-08-24 08:45, Rowland penny via samba wrote: > On 24/08/2020 14:09, K.R. Foley wrote: >> Regarding the statement "they will ignore the PDC" above, is there >> really no way to undo that? > > Only by not letting your clients contact the AD DC. > > One of the first things that the migration to AD script does is to > obtain the SID from the NT4-style

Hi All, Is it necessary to always have a controller per model? Rephrased: Would you end up jumping through hoops in the future if you have a controller called Customer in which you add methods to create new companies as well as new contacts? Thanx Regards, Gerard. -- "Who cares if it doesn''t do anything? It was made with our new Triple-Iso-Bifurcated-Krypton-Gate-MOS

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:26:31AM +0100, Stephan Roth via samba wrote: >Let me rephrase the question in hope for an answer: > >Is it at all feasible to identify the operating system of a client? no, not really. We try to match by the list of supported SMB dialects in the SMB1 negprot, but that is really just guesswork. -slow -- Ralph Boehme, Samba Team

I'm going to rephrase my question Are any of you using any time of single signon technology to interact with active directory in a development project? I'd like to be able to grab the authentication with a user first authenticates as a domain admin via, say Apache, and then re-use this auth to give this admin a list of domian user. Not sure of the best approach. -- Greg J. Zartman

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Joachim Durchholz wrote: >> Please verify that this actually happens in practice with llvm-gcc and >> gcc. > > If that's already the case (which I'll gladly believe), where does the > performance overhead for virtual functions come from? > (Just curious.) I don't understand what you're asking. Please rephrase. -Chris --

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > Quoting from the google doc: "If we don’t know definition of some > function, we assume that it will not call @llvm.invariant.group.barrier(). > " > This part really really bugs me. We generally try to assume minimal > knowledge of external functions (i.e. they can do

Hi, I am from a Java background and pretty new to Ruby and Rails. What I am wondering is how I would shared state accross requests and users without involving IO, i.e. use memory. My current understanding is that for each request a new process ist spawn and therefore it gets its own memory. So no sharing can take place between requests? Do I understand this right? For those who know

OK, let me rephrase this. What is the preferred way to install llvm + llvm- gcc onto a fedora system? Here is what I used: ../llvm-gcc4.2-2.5.source/configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --program- prefix=llvm make make install ../llvm-2.5/configure --enable-optimized --prefix=/usr/local make make install

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:53:17 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo at daterainc.com> wrote: > > > + while (1) { > > > + spin_lock(&pool->lock); > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * prepare_to_wait() must come before steal_tags(), in case > > > + * percpu_ida_free() on another cpu flips a bit in > > > + * cpus_have_tags > >

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:53:17 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo at daterainc.com> wrote: > > > + while (1) { > > > + spin_lock(&pool->lock); > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * prepare_to_wait() must come before steal_tags(), in case > > > + * percpu_ida_free() on another cpu flips a bit in > > > + * cpus_have_tags > >

> On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:03 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > > On 09/03/15 21:52, Anna Zaks wrote: >> >> +Easily, some of the code snippets end up being copied dozens of >> +times, which leads to worse maintainability, understandability and logical >> +design. > Should be better now. >> >> The project description stresses

On 11.02.19 11:37, Udo Kaune via samba wrote: > Am 11.02.19 um 11:30 schrieb Ralph Böhme via samba: >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:26:31AM +0100, Stephan Roth via samba wrote: >>> Let me rephrase the question in hope for an answer: >>> >>> Is it at all feasible to identify the operating system of a client? >> >> no, not really. We try to match by the

Sorry, if it was answered already elsewhere. Where exactly are the current EL6 builds done? Or rephrased: I would like to look into the state of following security update: mysql-5.1.73-8.el6_8.src.rpm Looking into https://git.centos.org/repositories/ http://cbs.centos.org http://buildlogs.centos.org/ shows mostly EL7 stuff. Just curious, LF