search for: viable

...ives compilation errors as: testfile.C:11:3: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'X' X a = { Y() }; // reports error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'X' ^ ~~~~~~~ testfile.C:1:8: note: candidate constructor (the implicit copy constructor) not viable: no known conversion from 'Y' to 'const X &' for 1st argument struct X ^ testfile.C:1:8: note: candidate constructor (the implicit move constructor) not viable: no known conversion from 'Y' to 'X &&' for 1st argument struct X ^ t...

...rd stopped making calls, I replaced the computer hardware, installed new OS and new Asterisk (from 1.2 to 1.4) without making a difference, the only factor in common is the TDM400P ... oh the card will receive calls just fine, so it's not a surge that has blown anything. Anyway, are there any viable alternatives to the Digium cards for analogue termination as yet. I need a minimum of 3 FXO ports. Are the Sangoma cards any good (I noticed a 5 year warranty on those ones)? Regards, Michael.

...: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'X' >> X a = { Y() }; // reports error: no matching constructor for >> initialization of 'X' >> ^ ~~~~~~~ >> testfile.C:1:8: note: candidate constructor (the implicit copy >> constructor) not viable: no known conversion from 'Y' to 'const X &' for 1st >> argument >> struct X >> ^ >> testfile.C:1:8: note: candidate constructor (the implicit move >> constructor) not viable: no known conversion from 'Y' to 'X &&...

...th asterisk? Cheers, Dean -----Original Message----- From: mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org [mailto:mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org] On Behalf Of Kenni Lund Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 11:44 AM To: Discussion about mythtv Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] VMWare on the backend. Viable solution? 2010/1/13 Martin Ravell <martin.ravell at rave-tech.com.au>: > General consensust is that in order to use my PVR-350 I'd need to use PCI > Passthrough. > > Support for PCI Passthrough is via a capability known as DV-t (at least on > Intel based systems). The boar...

...> testfile.C:11:3: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'X' > X a = { Y() }; // reports error: no matching constructor for > initialization of 'X' > ^ ~~~~~~~ > testfile.C:1:8: note: candidate constructor (the implicit copy > constructor) not viable: no known conversion from 'Y' to 'const X &' for 1st > argument > struct X > ^ > testfile.C:1:8: note: candidate constructor (the implicit move > constructor) not viable: no known conversion from 'Y' to 'X &&' for 1st >...

...enMPI 1.2.4 (SunHPC 7.1)). In researching previous work, the most promising approaches seem to be: A. Snow (with Rmpi or Rpvm) (as described in http://www.r-project.org/useR-2006/Slides/Harrington+Salibian-Barrera.pd f from the 2006 R User Conference) It is my understanding that this approach is viable, and works with OpenMPI 1.2.4. Is anyone using this method with good results? B. taskpR, RScaLAPACK, pMatrix I read a paper http://sdm.lbl.gov/sdmcenter/projects/SDM.center.parallel.r.2-pager.4.do c coming out of the ORNL, describing what they call "parallel R", which included taskpr, R...

...uot; but without the ability to query it otherwise - well, with a deprecated way to query it that we could chase down calls to as the main migration. Once we got to zero "getElementType" callers we could figure out the actual IR migration piece. > > Do you think that wouldn't be viable & that introducing the new opaque pointer type sooner would be better/more viable? I think it'd be viable, but would turn many of the patches into NFC with no way to test them. I'm quite happy to do that for strictly obvious changes, but I get a bit more nervous when we get to larger s...

...tep forward in a noncommittal way? > > How about allowing the code owner to add a line to CODE_OWNERS.TXT of > the location to submit patches? If no location is given, assume > llvm-commits. If the URI is a Github spork, the contributor should > make a Pull Request. This isn't viable; Github pull requests aren't visible on llvm-commits. -Eli

hi guys I wonder if any Centosian here have done something different than only contemplated using Fedora Server, actually worked on it in test/production envs. If here are some folks who have done it I want to ask if you deem it to be a viable option to put it on at least portion of servers stack. Anybody? Many thanks, L.

Longtime lurker and user of wine, but I'm about to replace my old nvidia card with a newer model and seeing as Ati is open sourcing their drivers. I was wondering if I should get a 4800 card, but only if the fglrx or x86-radeon driver is up to the task :) Like can it run direct3d 9 games like Eve? How about 2d performance in games like fallout 2 and planescape torment?

Hi all, Does anyone knows how to add a new variable to the predefined variables sent by asterisk to AGI script? regards -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20090304/80ba7bd7/attachment.htm

Hi, anyone tried to speed up samba file transfer over the network by turning off the kernel opportunity locking - the so called: "kernel oplocks = no"? 2 questions: 1. In scenario, where you have purely data storage filesystem (no apps, databases anything), shared only over Samba and accessed only by windows client workstations - would it be OK to use the "kernel oplocks =

> This isn't viable; Github pull requests aren't visible on llvm-commits. No, this isn't viable under at least both assumptions: 1) Cost-benefit fails. Github pull requests adds less value to the community than llvm-commits. 2) No technical solution exists. Notifications of Github pull requests can't b...

...constructor for initialization of 'X' >>> X a = { Y() }; // reports error: no matching constructor for >>> initialization of 'X' >>> ^ ~~~~~~~ >>> testfile.C:1:8: note: candidate constructor (the implicit copy >>> constructor) not viable: no known conversion from 'Y' to 'const X &' for 1st >>> argument >>> struct X >>> ^ >>> testfile.C:1:8: note: candidate constructor (the implicit move >>> constructor) not viable: no known conversion from 'Y' to...

...argets/aarch64-linux-androideabi/include/math_functions.hpp:3477:19: error: no matching function for call to '__isinf' if (a == 0.0 || __isinf(a)) { ^~~~~~~ ../cuda/targets/aarch64-linux-androideabi/include/math_functions_dbl_ptx3.hpp:165:38: note: candidate function not viable: call to __device__ function from __host__ function __MATH_FUNCTIONS_DBL_PTX3_DECL__ int __isinf(double a) __THROW ^ In file included from <built-in>:1: In file included from ../prebuilts/clang/host/linux-x86/clang-4667116/lib64/clang/7.0.1/include/_...

Hello All, We have been doing Asterisk and CME implementations recently but we almost always exlusively bring in analog lines and or PRI for PSTN access to our systems. I have known about providers providing SIP based lines and SIP trunks to end users for PSTN access. I am curious about the following: - How practical is this? The idea of terminating pstn calls to across the Internet

..../boost/iostreams/device/mapped_file.hpp:438:19: note: candidate function [with Path = boost::iostreams::detail::path] void mapped_file::open(const basic_mapped_file_params<Path>& p) ^ ./boost/iostreams/device/mapped_file.hpp:442:19: note: candidate function template not viable: requires at least 2 arguments, but 1 was provided void mapped_file::open( ^ ./boost/iostreams/device/mapped_file.hpp:462:5: error: call to member function 'open' is ambiguous open(p); ^~~~ ./boost/iostreams/device/mapped_file.hpp:289:10: note: candidate function [...

...e(cg); errs() << "DomTreeBase:"; DTB->print(errs()); return false; } virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<CallGraph>(); } Error list: /Developer/llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/Dominators.h:666:35: error: no viable conversion from 'typename TraitsTy::nodes_iterator' (aka 'mapped_iterator<CallGraph::iterator, DerefFun>') to 'NodeType *' (aka 'llvm::CallGraphNode *') if (TraitsTy::child_begin(I) == TraitsTy::child_end(I)) ^ /Deve...

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: >> This isn't viable; Github pull requests aren't visible on llvm-commits. > > No, this isn't viable under at least both assumptions: > > 1) Cost-benefit fails. Github pull requests adds less value to the > community than llvm-commits. > 2) No technical solution exists. Notifications of Gith...

Ok, my little experiment proved my point. Ruby 1.8.6 is not viable for production. Requiring it and dropping the cgi fix back patch isn''t an option. It''s not even clear whether the latest 1.8.6 has any remaining fixes. So, crisis averted. Mongrel WILL NOT require 1.8.6 and now I''m going to dig out where these security fixes are coming...