similar to: dfs/dce and openssh

I'm not on this mailing list so please make sure that I'm listed in any replies. There seems to be a basic flaw in either AIX pty's or many Linux applications and sshd falls into this category. sshd has a routine called openpty and it looks like ssh's version mimics the version in Linux. (I'm not sure where openpty comes from -- I'm assuming Linux.) The key to

According to "Ruby On Rails", the layout call is suppose to be inherited: (page 508) "Subclasses of a controller will use the parent''s layout unless they override it using the layout directive" I have a case where this is not working. I have not spent time to concoct a stand alone test. I wanted to verify that David''s book is correct first. Can someone

Hi, I had a question and can not find out on the web where anyone might have done this. I am sftping between one AIX machine and another using automatic login. I have created the id_rsa.pub on the source server and added it to the /.ssh/authorized_keys file on the target server. The problem we are having seems to be that because the target id is a DCE(DFS) id and it's home directory is

Hi Guys- We are a group involved in a project to move an application from Windows to AIX, and part of the application involves reading OSF DFS shares, and making the filesystem available to Windows machines through SAMBA. The conversion of the application has gone well, but it is our first time using SAMBA and I have some questions that hopefully are not too dumb, and if they are, we would gladly

Hi, I wrote an IR pass and it adds some instructions that are not used. For example: %1 = call i64 @foo() When %1 is not used at all. I thought that running DCE (-dce) or DIE (-die) after my pass will remove such instructions, but it didn't. Why? And is there a way to do that? Thanks, Tehila. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

scripts/performance/request is gone... and the RequestProfiler class is gone from ActionController. Is there a simple way to profile a request? Thanks pedz -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send

Hi Thanks in advanced. I'm writing a proxy server doing NTLMv2 authentication. I think I need a NetLogon client service . Is there any available library providing netlogon function? or at least an dce rpc library? an asynchronous library is the best. :) Thanks again. Derek.

Hello, with OpenSSH_2.3.0p1 running in HP-UX 11.00 I noticed that the "SD commands" (like "swcopy") produce the following error when being logged in via SSH: ERROR: RPC exception: "Who are you failed (dce / rpc)" 11/29/00 11:20:18 MET Ideas? Regards, Ulrich P.S. Not subscribed to the list

If I have: %x = call @externalFunc ... ; other codes where %x is not used ret ; assume void function and use dce optimization, will the call gets eliminated? -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/DCE-and-external-function-tp29932485p29932485.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=445 ------- Additional Comments From simon at sxw.org.uk 2003-05-21 00:49 ------- The existing code only handles the situation where Kerberos credentials are created by the OpenSSH's krb5 code. What would appear to be happening under OSF/1 is that one of the calls used to verify the users login is, as a by-product, creating the credentials

These are already open. I'm pretty sure that NT4/2003 PDC's make a DCE/RPC over TCP connection to pull down the <1b> entries from the wins server. I have done packet captures on test NT4 wins server to see how PDC's pull their domain lists, and I see the port 135 three way handshake, which then gets switched over to a tcp port 1028 which is the dce/rpc requests and responses.

> only if the compiler can prove that the called function has > no side effects (such as modifying some global variables or > causing the program to exit). can it prove if the function resides in a shared library? -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/DCE-and-external-function-tp29932485p29942236.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hi leledumbo, > If I have: > > %x = call @externalFunc > ... ; other codes where %x is not used > ret ; assume void function > > and use dce optimization, will the call gets eliminated? only if the compiler can prove that the called function has no side effects (such as modifying some global variables or causing the program to exit). Ciao, Duncan.

Hi, On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi leledumbo, > >> If I have: >> >> %x = call @externalFunc >> ... ; other codes where %x is not used >> ret ; assume void function >> >> and use dce optimization, will the call gets eliminated? > > only if the compiler can prove that the called function has

Thanks Also I found that some cases are also caught by a specialized routine to remove dead loops which is missing the case I noticed. odavd From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org<mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>> Date: Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 8:45 PM To: David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com<mailto:dcallahan at fb.com>>, LLVM Dev Mailing list <llvm-dev at

I have been looking at some internal codes looking for differences between Clang (specifically 3.7.1) and gcc (typically 4.8.1 but sometimes later). One area where I bumped into was dead code elimination in the presence of complex control flow. I note that the “aggressive dead code elimination” (ADCE.cpp) treats all branch operations as live (isa<TerminatorInst>(I)). Doing more requires

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:21 PM, leledumbo <leledumbo_cool at yahoo.co.id> wrote: > >> only if the compiler can prove that the called function has >> no side effects (such as modifying some global variables or >> causing the program to exit). > > can it prove if the function resides in a shared library? Only if the right function attributes are added. See

In practice, APT is not faster to build than rdf. The df calculator we use is linear time and quite fast. Updating is also pretty trivial since it's only deletes of dead and unreachable code. So anything it reached can be replaced with undef in most cases. Cd-dce is not slower in GCC than dce On Fri, Jan 29, 2016, 8:31 PM David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com> wrote: > I think you

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"David Callahan via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *To: *"Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org>, "LLVM Dev Mailing list" < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Sent: *Thursday, January 28, 2016

Maybe I was too quick here. Does gcc record the incoming edge to a phi? If so, won’t those change when you delete blocks in a non-trivial manner? How are those updated? From: David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com<mailto:dcallahan at fb.com>> Date: Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 7:02 AM To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org<mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>>, Hal Finkel