similar to: On CLI SIP don't appear

Hi anyone, I need to install an application to organize conference in Asterisk, and to this I wanna use webmeetme, but I don't get find a good manual, anyone have or know where I can find a good manual to this application? Thank you very much. Renato -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, I wanna record the conversations in a conference call, anyone know how can I do it? I've already configurated a room on meetme.conf but I don't know as I can record the conversations. I'm using SUSE 11 and Asterisk 1.6.2. Thank you so much for help me. Bye ____________________________________________________________________________________ Veja quais s?o os

Parsing the arch string is a bit icky, but I don't really have too much of a problem with it - and it's better than -mcpu so... -eric On Tue Jan 07 2014 at 9:23:43 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 7 January 2014 17:05, Amara Emerson <amara.emerson at arm.com> wrote: > > We plan on implementing this interface for AArch64 Clang in future, and

I think that this works (and adds no appreciable driver complexity) provided that we're not expecting to support -mtune. If clang is (one day) going to be able to isel based on one target and optimize based on another then we might find ourselves wanting to change the meaning of -march from 'isel and optimize' to 'isel only'. So Amara's question about -mtune (or more

I knew I'd regret leaving that option in for the MIPS port back in 99. Basically this is the only acceptable way for mcpu to exist, but should never have been added to the GCC aarch64 port at all since there's no compatibility with existing build systems to worry about. I would still like you to show this mythical piece of software that needs this compatibility. -eric On Jan 8, 2014 3:06

On 25 June 2014 12:58, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: > This is one of the worst parts about the Clang CLI for cross compilation at > the moment. I'd really like, if we're changing the CLI, to allow users to > remove it. For example, if I specify -march=armv7-a, it *shouldn't* need me > to put "-target arm" before it to work! Good lord,

On 08/16/2013 01:42 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 16 August 2013 20:02, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com > <mailto:rkotler at mips.com>> wrote: > > -std=gnu89 is not valid for c++ > > > I think the point here is that this is the default std for GCC but not > Clang, so you have to force clang to behave like GCC. For C++, you'll > have to force

On 16 August 2013 20:02, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > -std=gnu89 is not valid for c++ > I think the point here is that this is the default std for GCC but not Clang, so you have to force clang to behave like GCC. For C++, you'll have to force whatever default GCC has for it's C++ standard. Though, GCC 4.8 is getting very close to Clang's behaviour, so

On 8 January 2014 12:32, Bernard Ogden <Bernard.Ogden at arm.com> wrote: > I don't think there's software that *needs* the compatibility, but it is > easier for GCC projects to switch to clang if that compatibility is there - > which I think is why we go for GCC compatibility in the first place? > Hi Bernie, GCC compatibility is always considered to be an important

Sorry, I have been very behind on patch reviews. Bob and Jim, do you have any opinions about this? Evan On Jun 2, 2010, at 5:18 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > Hi, > > Is there any interest in this patch? Is there any better way of doing this (that will be accepted mainstream)? > > I noticed my cast check was wrong (LLVM cast asserts, rather than return a null pointer). Also,

Hi all, I did some changes to the AsmPrinter in order to print relocation information in GAS format compatible with ARM ELF. It doesn't look like the best solution, but there were some problems and the fact that this is my first attempt to change LLVM. My original assumption was that, changing MCExpr to accept relocation information, we could propagate that down later to whatever gets

Hi, Recently, I committed a patch adding default features for '-mcpu'. And after that, Eric replied me here's a proposal toward using '-march' instead of '-mcpu'. As it's half a year later from original proposal, some background may changes. One thing worth to mention is, during this time, Apple Contributed its backend and introduced another new CPU type: cyclone.

On 5 September 2016 at 22:12, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > Should we revert this? This is pretty serious? Can we fix this quickly > on the bots? Just FYI, I'm moving the "llvm" directory away and making it as a symlink to "llvm.src", at least until we sort out this problem. Since this has been going on from Sep 1st, I believe we'll

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote: > Hi Talin, > > I too agree 100% with Dan's words, and this could be a good pointer > for Jin-Gu Kang to continue on his pursuit for a better > target-independent bitcode. > > Also, add your backwards compatibility issue to debug metadata in IR, > in which fields appear or disappear

Hi Talin, I too agree 100% with Dan's words, and this could be a good pointer for Jin-Gu Kang to continue on his pursuit for a better target-independent bitcode. Also, add your backwards compatibility issue to debug metadata in IR, in which fields appear or disappear without notice. But I think you hit a sweet spot here... On 4 October 2011 21:23, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, Clang for AArch64 currently accepts an -mfpu option to specify the FPU/NEON unit. This behaviour, while consistent with the ARM target and ARM gcc, will no longer be supported in AArch64 gcc. The preferred CLI for specifying FPU/NEON units will be the use of the -march option with feature modifiers (+[no]feature). The feature modifiers according to the GCC manual are: * crypto * fp * simd

Ping. Can I assume that we're ok with this interface proposal then? Amara -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140127/49962cbc/attachment.html>

On 25 Jun 2014, at 12:58, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: > This is one of the worst parts about the Clang CLI for cross compilation at the moment. I'd really like, if we're changing the CLI, to allow users to remove it. For example, if I specify -march=armv7-a, it *shouldn't* need me to put "-target arm" before it to work! One thing that I've

Is there a way to handle this entirely in the ARM AsmPrinter bits? Adding pieces to the generic MC stuff feels a bit like overkill at first impression. On a minor note: You probably want dyn_cast<> instead of cast<> so you can do something like: if (const MCSectionELF* SectionELF = dyn_cast<MCSectionELF>(Section)) { // ... } -Jim On Jun 16, 2010, at 3:44 PM, Evan Cheng

We just wanted to check to see if they are real bugs first. We will report them if they are not already fixed. Thanks. Del From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 12:07 AM To: Del Myers <delmyers at microsoft.com> Cc: LLVM Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] llvm 3.8.1 Release Did you report the bugs? It would be a