search for: spacings

Hi, I'm trying to manually create a rhel7 image using the qemu-img and virt-install commands. I'm re-testing a procedure I previously wrote with the new grub commands that a customer suggested we add in. This procedure is available at: http://file.bne.redhat.com/dnavale/docs/review/RH-guides/AG-020715/#sect-create-images As in the procedure, I'm able to run all steps successfully

Dear Eliza, Try this: Lines1<-readLines(textConnection("1911.01.01?????? 7.87 1911.01.02?????? 9.26 1911.01.03?????? 8.06 1911.01.04?????? 8.13 1911.01.05????? 12.90 1911.02.06?????? 5.45 1911.02.07?????? 3.26 1911.03.08?????? 5.70 1911.03.09?????? 9.24 1911.04.10?????? 7.60 1911.05.11????? 14.82 1911.05.12????? 14.10 1911.06.13?????? 7.87 1911.06.14?????? 9.26

Hi Rich, I'm not sure how far this helps as it mostly says 'No space left on device', but here's the output of the command you asked me to run: ➜ tmp /usr/bin/supermin --build -v -v -v --copy-kernel -f ext2 --host-cpu x86_64 /usr/lib64/guestfs/supermin.d -o /tmp/appliance.d supermin: version: 5.1.9 supermin: rpm: detected RPM version 4.11 supermin: package handler: fedora/rpm

Hi All, I'm struggling since weeks to get samba winbind and a kerberized nfs mount running. We have a Netapp SAN exporting the nfs share with sec=krb5 and a Linux Client Ubuntu 10.04 Server trying to access the exported share. Accessing the share without krb5 (sec=sys) works fine. The linux machine is joined to an Windows 2008R2 domain and user/group lookups login via ssh etc. work fine. I

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 02:55:33PM -0500, Ken Dyck wrote: > The address space mechanism is used by some code generators to > differentiate between physical memory spaces. The PIC16 code generator > uses address spaces 0 and 1 to select between its RAM and ROM spaces. > And X86 uses address space 256 for GS and 257 for FS. In the back end > for a dual-harvard DSP that I've been

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 09:14:03PM +0200, Karol Herbst wrote: > > - changes in the nouveau driver. Mika told me the PCIe regression > > "pcieport 0000:00:01.0: PME: Spurious native interrupt!" is supposed > > to be fixed in 5.8, but I still get a 4mn hang or so during boot and > > with 5.8, removing the USB key, didn't help make the boot faster >

Hello all, I’m looking into solving an AVR-specific issue and would love to hear peoples thoughts on how to best fix it. Background As you may or may not know, I maintain the in-tree AVR backend, which also happens to be (to the best of my knowledge) the first in-tree backend for a Harvard architecture. In this architecture, code lives inside the ‘program memory’ space (numbered 1), whereas data

Package: logcheck-database Version: 1.2.22a Severity: normal Thanks to the upgrade to Postfix 2.1 and deploying a newer logcheck ruleset on a busier server I've found a bunch more rules for Postfix. I've attached new rules files and patches are inline. The following patch is for violations.ignore.d: --- logcheck-postfix.orig 2004-06-21 20:11:14.000000000 +0100 +++ logcheck-postfix

On 08/07/2015 12:22 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: > Sorry to be pedantic, but i think it's important to make sure we are > all on the same page that backends can't change the aliasing behavior > of the default address space, only the aliasing behavior of the other > address spaces. Are you saying that we can't say address space 0 doesn't alias other address

> [Micah Villmow] The backends won't understand your address space mapping. The backends should expose their address spaces that they support, their sizes and their overall semantics. It should be documented just like the calling convention is documented. It is then the job of the frontend to map whatever source language address spaces are used onto the correct address spaces for the

On Aug 7, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Matt Arsenault <Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com> wrote: > On 08/07/2013 01:52 PM, Michele Scandale wrote: >> >> IMHO this information should be a plus that could be *safely* ignored when not necessary and used where it can provide an improvement in optimizations. This does not necessary mean the the middle-end (and the back-ends) must be aware of the

On Aug 7, 2013, at 6:38 PM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/08/2013 03:16 AM, Pete Cooper wrote: >> >> On Aug 7, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 08/08/2013 02:02 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote: >>>> This worries me a bit. This would introduce language-specific

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 06:59:47PM +0000, Villmow, Micah wrote: > Justin, > Out of these options, I would take the metadata approach for AA support. > > This doesn't solve the problem of different frontend/backends choosing different > address space representations for the same language, but is the correct > approach for providing extra information to the optimizations.

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:08 AM, Matthijs Kooijman <matthijs at stdin.nl> wrote: > Now, we are using a function which reads a value from one of these memories > and does some processing. Since we want to execute this function for multiple > memories, we make it accept a pointer in the generic address space (ie, no > address space attribute): > > void do_stuff(char*

Hi all, I'm currently struggling a bit with some problems regarding address spaces and (implicit) casts. I'll explain some context first and then proceed to the actual question I'd like to have answered. In our target platform, we have a number of distinctly different memory banks. To access these from our C code, we declare a global array for each memory, with the address space

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > The more I think about it, the more I become uncomfortable with the > concept of language-specific address spaces in LLVM.  These are the > main issues I see with language-specific address spaces: ... > Instead of language-specific address spaces, each target should > concentrate on

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 04:21:23PM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 06:59:47PM +0000, Villmow, Micah wrote: > > > Justin, > > > Out of these options, I would take the metadata approach for AA support. > > > > > > This doesn't

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, David Neto wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Peter Collingbourne wrote: >> >> The more I think about it, the more I become uncomfortable with the >> concept of language-specific address spaces in LLVM.  These are the >> main issues I see with language-specific address spaces: > > ... > >> Instead of language-specific

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2013, at 6:38 PM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 08/08/2013 03:16 AM, Pete Cooper wrote: > > > On Aug 7, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 08/08/2013 02:02 AM, Justin

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 10:58 PM Marc MERLIN <marc_nouveau at merlins.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 09:14:03PM +0200, Karol Herbst wrote: > > > - changes in the nouveau driver. Mika told me the PCIe regression > > > "pcieport 0000:00:01.0: PME: Spurious native interrupt!" is supposed > > > to be fixed in 5.8, but I still get a 4mn hang