search for: viables

for the following code: struct X { X(); }; struct Y { operator X() const; }; X a = { Y() }; // reports error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'X' X aa = Y(); // works fine clang when compiled with std=c++11 gives compilation errors as: testfile.C:11:3: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'X' X a = { Y() }; // reports error: no

I have now within 18 months had a second TDM400P die, the first time was random call drops, and now it will not go off hook when making a call. To summarise, the card 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

Actually it should have not thrown error at all. it works fine with gcc. And the part of code which you mentioned is not getting hit at all. Maybe some difference in parsing is there. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Mayur Pandey <mayurthebond at gmail.com>wrote: > >> for the following

I found this on the myth-tv list. Can we do the same thing with 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

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Mayur Pandey <mayurthebond at gmail.com>wrote: > for the following code: > > struct X > { > X(); > }; > > struct Y > { > operator X() const; > }; > > X a = { Y() }; // reports error: no matching constructor for > initialization of 'X' > X aa = Y(); // works fine > > > clang when compiled

All, We are researching approaches to parallel R with the end goal of running R in a distributed manner on a Linux cluster. We expect of course to do some work decomposing our problems to be task-parallel or data-parallel, but wouldn't mind getting an initial boost working with "embarrassingly parallel" code sections and one of the approaches below. Incidentally our environment

>> So at a high level I think we should put the serialization and Instruction >> changes in sooner rather than later, giving us a largely undocumented[2] dialect >> of IR with opaque pointers that we can write tests against to upstream the rest >> of what I've done (and others can use to continue work in parallel if they're >> inclined). > > My,

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > David A. Green wrote: >> I find llvm-commits daunting. So much that I hesitate to do reviews. >> As Chris commented, I am not very active on that list. There's a reason >> for that beyond lack of time. > > So the goal is to make it easier for a member of the community to >

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 be sent to llvm-commits. #1 may or may not be the case, which is the point

I'm not really an overload resolution expert, so I could be wrong. Anyway, please file a bug report (http://llvm.org/bugs/), and our overload resolution experts will take a look. :) -Eli On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Mayur Pandey <mayurthebond at gmail.com>wrote: > Actually it should have not thrown error at all. it works fine with gcc. > And the part of code which you

I was wondering if anyone has encountered this issue when cross compiling cuda on Nvidia TX2 running android. The error is In file included from <built-in>:1: In file included from prebuilts/clang/host/linux-x86/clang-4667116/lib64/clang/7.0.1/include/__clang_cuda_runtime_wrapper.h:219: ../cuda/targets/aarch64-linux-androideabi/include/math_functions.hpp:3477:19: error: no matching function

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

I tried building boost 1.45 release with clang 2.9 following instructions on http://blog.llvm.org/2010/05/clang-builds-boost.html but got the following result: $ clang++ --version clang version 2.9 (trunk 123420) Target: x86_64-apple-darwin10 Thread model: posix $ ./bjam toolset=clang Building the Boost C++ Libraries. Performing configuration checks - has_icu builds : no

Hi there, I'm currently writing an analysis (for now) pass for LLVM that kind of need some information from the CallGraph of the program. This info would be extremely easy to get if I could build the DominatorTree information about the CallGraph. I even checked out and saw the declarations of GraphTraits templates for CallGraph and CallGraphNode, which might indicate that all algorithms that

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.

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 from and how to host this kind