similar to: Wifi600 problem

I have just started to play with callgroups and pickupgroups.. I updates my * from CVS this morning (about 15 mins ago).. I have placed callgroup=1 and pickupgroup=1 into each of my 3 phone configurations in sip.conf.. I place a call from phoneA to phoneB, then I go to phoneC and dial *8# , the call does not get picked up by phoneC and continues to ring on phoneB.. Have I not configured

Hello All I am looking for a PC based switchboard application. Cisco CallManager has a web attendant console that allows you to use the PC to transfer calls and the like and I was wondering if there was a similar program compatible with *. Thank you in advance Keith D'Atrio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, in the Snom FAQ I found the following information: After staring up, the phone tries the URL given in the "Setting URL" of the phone. ... BTW this setting can also be set via DHCP. .... option tftp-server-name "http://192.168.0.9/snom200{mac}.htm" The documents used: FAQ-04-06-14-sf.pdf "Setting up DHCP for snom phones" FAQ-04-03-24-sf.pdf "How can I

Hi, I've had a search through the archives and didn't find much. Is anyone using the Monitor application? I have it working but there is a really big drawback. The files are always called the same thing, which means if I make 2 calls one after the other the first recording is lost. I half expected Monitor to use something like ZAP-2-1-<yyyymmddhhmmss>-in/out.wav for it's

Does anybody have any experience with the ZyXEL Prestige 2000W? I am having problems with the line tear down when I call another extension. If nobody picks up at the other end when I hangup the 2000W, the other extension continues to ring. Is there any way to hangup a SIP call if there is no more traffic? Asterisk seems to think that there is still a connection open. This is pretty annoying

As I have explained in another thread, I am in the process of porting portions of newlib to LLVM. The target system has no operating system and a custom processor which may be changed from compilation to compilation. We intend to use LLVM as the front end and generate target specific code from LLVM byte code. For various reasons (whole program optimization being one of them), it would seem to

Hi Reid, I'll write a separate post about the intrinsics, but just a quick note about the CFLAGS issue. Reid Spencer kirjoitti: > On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 15:29 +0200, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: >> Another related thing is that even when I defined -emit-llvm in >> what I thought would be a global CFLAGS for all of newlib, it did >> not get propagated to all subdirectories.

Hi Pertti, The boost Python are not (yet) part of LLVM so I suppose it would make most sense to try to makes fixes/changes so they would work for 1.7 and then try to get them into LLVM CVS. It would be good in such a case to ask the author of the bindings again if he would allow this, because basicaly I think he has to agree to the LLVM lincense. cheers, Eric On Apr 20, 2006, at 5:08

This came up when trying to compile the Python bindings against llvm 1.7. File include/llvm/Transforms/Scalar.h declares llvm::createPREPass(), which does not seem to be implemented anywhere. Should I report this in llvmbugs? -- Pertti

Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > This came up when trying to compile the Python bindings > against llvm 1.7. File include/llvm/Transforms/Scalar.h > declares llvm::createPREPass(), which does not seem to > be implemented anywhere. Should I report this in llvmbugs? Just to clarify myself: this is an issue with the LLVM sources, not with the Python bindings. -- Pertti

Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: > On 15.10.2008, at 14.01, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: >> Seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate for the compiler to fold >> the two char constants together. > True, but note that it is the address of a variable that is used, not > the value. I don't have the C standard handy, but I would be somewhat surprised if the standard would explicitly

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Pertti Kellom�ki wrote: > I succesfully built a byte code version of newlib, so I tried to > use it like this: > > $ llvm-link hello.bc $NEWLIB/libc.a -o linked.bc > > but apparently llvm-link only understands byte code files. Right, llvm-link is the low level bytecode linking interface, not really useful for this sort of use. > Does it

I am having a strange problem with loop unrolling. Attached is a small example that demonstrates what happens. There is a for-loop with a known trip count, and some control flow inside the loop. If the condition of the control flow only depends on the loop index and loop invariant variables, the loop is not unrolled. However, if the condition involves potentially loop variant variables, the loop

Hi Pertti, On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 18:41 +0200, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > Hi Reid, > > I'll write a separate post about the intrinsics, but just > a quick note about the CFLAGS issue. Okay. > > Reid Spencer kirjoitti: > > On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 15:29 +0200, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > >> Another related thing is that even when I defined -emit-llvm in >

The "new features" link at <http://www.llvm.org> appears to point to the release notes of 1.8. Does a similar list exist yet for 1.9, or should I just wait patiently? Thanks, Pertti

I gave a short presentation on LLVM for a couple of people here, and they had questions I could not immediately answer. The questions are rather obvious, so I'm hoping that someone has already found out the answers. So here we go: 1) What is the relative size of LLVM bitcode files and the corresponding native binaries? Are there significant differences between targets (e.g. x86, ARM,

Pertti, On Feb 13, 2007, at 7:34 PM, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > Dietmar Ebner wrote: >> most of the work seems to be done in an architecture dependent, >> very low- >> level IR. are there any efforts to generalize architecture >> independent portions >> of the code. >> any comments on this are very appreciated. > > We are in a similar

I am pretty excited about the recent activity on dependence analysis. The only remaining problem from our point of view is how to get the alias information to the back end instruction scheduler. If I understand things correctly, the alias information basically gets lost in the process of lowering to target instructions. We are interested in the DSP domain, so we really need to get SIMD style

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Pertti Kellom�ki wrote: > Aside from stuff that depends on system headers, are there any other > dependencies on the host system? In other words, will llvm-gcc produce > exactly the same byte code for a given set of source files regardless of > where compilation takes place? This has obvious implications on Yes. Many aspects of the target compiler

A short while ago I wrote about the strange loop unrolling behavior we encountered. The problem was that with -O3, the following loop does not get unrolled if the ifdef'ed dead code is not present. ------------------------------------ extern volatile int v1; int unroll() { int i; int v2 = 0; for(i = 0; i < 3; i++) { if (i == v2) { v1 = 1000; } else { v1 = 1001; }