search for: thinks

...t bytenr 67108864 has different contents! trying potential super #2 at bytenr 274877906944 super #2 at bytenr 274877906944 has same generation 43884 than 43884, skipping warning: super #2 at bytenr 274877906944 has different contents! trying potential super #0 at bytenr 65536 misplaced block thinks it''s at 0 trying potential super #1 at bytenr 67108864 misplaced block thinks it''s at 0 trying potential super #2 at bytenr 274877906944 misplaced block thinks it''s at 7810207560462397294 trying potential super #0 at bytenr 65536 misplaced block thinks it'...

hello all, i'm using TE110P and all configuration prosess is done. but after i do the 'modprobe' for zaptel and wcte11xp, follow by ztcfg -vv and asterisk -vvvgc i have this error. *CLI> May 27 14:44:33 WARNING[3059]: chan_zap.c:8534 pri_dchannel: PRI Error: We think we're the network, but they think they're the network, too. May 27 14:44:34 WARNING[3059]: chan_zap.c:8534

Dear all I got one more error my asterisk E1 card connected with avaya E1 card [avaya]-------E1-----[asterisk] i got this 2 error what is start asteris on consol mode asterisk -vvvvc [Jul 27 09:51:29] WARNING[737] chan_zap.c: PRI Error on span 0: We think we're the CPE, but they think they're the CPE too. [Jul 27 09:51:30] WARNING[737] chan_zap.c: PRI Error on

Sorry for the delays, just haven't been able to get back around to this. My silence isn't about not caring. On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com>wrote: > Like I summed up in my previous email (see below), there are two > orthogonal approaches to this problem. > I have chosen the second one (extend the reporting already used for inline

There''s been some discussion on the IRC channel about getting a site for Merb going. Since the culture around the project is pretty casual, I figured I''d just throw a few ideas together, see what you guys think. So, firstly here are three example pages, just to show off the general look and feel. http://mr-eel.com/tmp/merb/01_frontpage.gif

Rafael, You seems to be the person who added --start-lib and --end-lib to gold (*1), so I think you are the best person to ask about it. :) What is the intended use case of the options? Do you think we should support that in LLD? If we want to support that, then I think we can think of two implementation strategies: - Link object files between --start-lib and --end-lib normally and garbage

Thank you Frederick for your comments: They are really well justified. > I think a "forum" or bulletin board system would be a detraction from the project and a distraction for the project leaders. Users have Stack Exchange - it's better than any forum we could create, and it > takes care of itself. An excellent idea would be to add in the R Project Webpage a link to RSeek,

Just wanted to confirm that I too like where this is going. =] I think Philip and others have really handled the bulk of the review, and I'm very comfortable with them finishing the patch review. One issue where I wanted to chime in, hopefully just to add some clarity, is the "readonly" vs operand bundle set of (interrelated) issues. First, as I think Philip already said, I think

Do you think I'd break a lot of people's filters if I removed the prefix? :) Anyone strongly for/against removing it? It seems kind of annoying to me whenever I happen to think about it. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL:

I''m trying to build wxruby-swig on windows with the idea of building a windows installer for it. I think that this would go a long way toward encouraging windows developers to try out wxruby-swig. What do you think? Are we far enough along to contemplate a release? Building wxruby-swig on windows is actually going pretty smoothly, but I want to build it with vc++ 7.1 to match the

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > Cc: "LLVM Dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 12:40:58 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Target Acceptance Policy > > On 26 July 2016 at 18:33, Mehdi Amini

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:50:11AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > > > OK I thought this over. While we might need these new APIs in > > > > the future, I think that at the moment, there's a way to implement > > > > this feature that is significantly simpler. Just add each s/g > > > > as a separate input buffer. > > > > > > Should

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:50:11AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > > > OK I thought this over. While we might need these new APIs in > > > > the future, I think that at the moment, there's a way to implement > > > > this feature that is significantly simpler. Just add each s/g > > > > as a separate input buffer. > > > > > > Should

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:46 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > Tentatively final version is up here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25587 > > It has a verbal LGTM, but I plan to wait a bit longer just in case anyone > has some additional thoughts. It's a large patch, but if you're > interested, one way you can help

> We should also think about how to call std::terminate when cleanup dtors throw. The current representation for Itanium is inefficient. As a strawman, I propose making @__clang_call_terminate an intrinsic: … That sounds like a good starting point. > Chandler expressed strong concerns about this design, however, as @llvm.eh.get_capture_block adds an ordering constraint on CodeGen. Once

My friend and I (both new to RoR) were having a discussion today about whether or not you could build an exact replica of eBay using on Ruby on Rails. I think that it could in fact be done, or at least a very close model of the same concept. My friend seems to think that maybe in fact, it could not be done. What are your thoughts? Could an eBay clone be built using only Ruby on Rails? What do you

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 7:26 AM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote: > On Nov 13, 2020, at 2:06 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > We've pretty happy now with a patch that adds two wrappers around > SmallVector that make it 1) more convenient to use and 2) will tend to > mitigate misuse of SmallVector. We think

Sorry I missed these comments in my first read through David. On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:06 AM Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Thoughts? The code changes are easy and mechanical. My plan would be: >> > > There is one

I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I am not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think that we need to change every file nor do we need an automatic tool to find the owner. I think that a simple text file, or a section in the docs is enough. On Nov 17, 2012, at 2:51, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Pawel, I guess the code

Hi guys, I realize that this might be considered to be off topic, but the machine I want to use is running Cent OS. Ok, this is what I'm thinking about trying, and mainly just to see if I can do it. I've got a total of 3 linux machines here, and I was thinking about setting one of them up as an email server. Now, I'm not talking about setting the machine up so that all I