similar to: Bug#618218: your mail

Source: xen Version: 4.0.1-2 Severity: serious Tags: wheezy sid User: debian-qa at lists.debian.org Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20110313 qa-ftbfs Justification: FTBFS on amd64 Hi, During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on amd64. Relevant part: > make[3]: Entering directory `/build/user-xen_4.0.1-2-amd64-2x64p6/xen-4.0.1/debian/build/build-docs/docs' > latex

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > # bts housekeeping - fixing up versions to enable automatic bug archival > notfound 706747 3.2p1.4-28.1 Bug #706747 {Done: Andreas Beckmann <anbe at debian.org>} [olvwm] olvwm: fails to install [i386]: update-alternatives: error: alternative path /usr/bin/X11/olvwm-x-window-manager doesn't exist. There is no source info for the

Hello Sebastian, Am 08.03.2015 um 20:33 schrieb Sebastian Henrich: > I found a way to delete these ghost entries. All you need is an LDAP > tool like Apache Directory Studio. Then you connect via LDAP to the AD. > Inside the LDAP tree is a subtree named msdns (or similiar, I'm not able > to access my workstation at the moment). There you can find the buggy > entry and delete

Hi all, what happened to the mirrors? Many of them are outdated and older than 2days. They are missing the latest updates from yesterday and the day before yesterday. According to http://mirror-status.centos.org a whopping number of 227 mirrors are currently out of date. This is the major part of all European mirrors. :( Can someone please have a closer look at this? Thanks a lot and regards

This is the second version of my patch, this one is much more clean, since it's using upstream Makefile. This is the most urgent patch, since we need it in order to build xen-api-libs / xen-api. Please really consider applying this patch. Thomas -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 09_ocaml.diff Type: text/x-diff Size: 4680 bytes Desc: not

Anyone checked/reproduced this steps with ADSI Editor? Regards Tim Am 8. M?rz 2015 23:00:33 MEZ, schrieb Peter Serbe <peter at serbe.ch>: >Easy job with the right tool! > >Open Apache Directory Studio, select the LDAP browser -> New Connection > >Enter the server/hostname: dc1.samdom.com -> next >Select simple authentication, user: samdom\administrator, password

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > user debian-qa at lists.debian.org Setting user to debian-qa at lists.debian.org (was anbe at debian.org). > affects 774889 + xfswitch-plugin Bug #774889 [gdm3] gdm3: fails to upgrade squeeze -> wheezy -> jessie - trying to overwrite /usr/share/gdm/BuiltInSessions/default.desktop Added indication that 774889 affects xfswitch-plugin

Hallo, I'm using Samba 4 AD in production now for more than a half year. All works great since today. Today I was unable to access my network printer by its hostname. So I looked up his DNS Entry using the Windows DNS-Manager and recognized that the DNS entry for the printer is missing. I tried to readd it, but got the error message that the entry already exists. Next I tried to remove an

On 07/02/2018 04:33 PM, Saito, Hideki wrote: > >   > > >It may not be a full solution for the problems you're trying to solve > >   > > If we are inventing a new solution, I’d like it also to solve OpenMP > declare simd legalization issue. If a small extension of existing scheme > > works for mathlib only, I’m happy to take that and discuss OpenMP >

It may not be a full solution for the problems you're trying to solve, but I don't know why adding to include/llvm/CodeGen/RuntimeLibcalls.def is a problem in itself. Certainly, it's a mess that could be organized, especially so we're not repeating everything for each data type as we do right now. So yes, I think that would allow us to remove the VecLib mappings because we are

To the best of my experience, handling case B (secondary induction) is must-have, and if I’m not mistaken, people aren’t opposed to that. For me, handling case A (primary induction) is “why not?”, but I certainly admit that that can be very naïve thinking coming from lack of good understanding on SCEV and their proper usages. Now, let’s assume we can postpone discussion about case A. What is the

Adding to Ashutosh's comments, We are also interested in making LLVM generate vector math library calls that are available with glibc (version > 2.22). reference: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/libmvec Using the example case given in the reference, we found there are 2 vector versions for "sin" (4 X double) with same VF namely _ZGVcN4v_sin (avx) version and _ZGVdN4v_sin

Hi Hideki, I like this summary overall, thanks. More below. > On May 20, 2016, at 10:04 AM, Saito, Hideki <hideki.saito at intel.com> wrote: > > > To the best of my experience, handling case B (secondary induction) is must-have, and if I’m not mistaken, > people aren’t opposed to that. > > For me, handling case A (primary induction) is “why not?”, but I certainly

Sorry for jumping from http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-September/125853.html but this is relevant. Sorry for not responding to that sooner. I was thinking about a longer reply, and time flied too quickly. >But, as I said back then, before we do so, we need to understand >exactly where to put it. That will depend on what other passes will >actually use it and if we want it

-- | ``We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on | Damien Miller - | a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the | <djm at mindrot.org> | works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, / | we know this is not true.'' - Robert Wilensky UCB / http://www.mindrot.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 09:12:48 -0800 From: Takumi

For example, Type 2 case, scalar-foo used call by value while vector-foo used call by ref. The question Johannes is asking is whether we can decipher that after the fact, only by looking at the two function signatures, or need some more info (what kind, what's minimal)? I think we need to list up cases of interest, and for each vector ABI of interest, we need to work on the requirements and

Hi, I've the same problem but I'm on samba version 4.1.12 and gentoo and also using bind backend. However, my result are a bit different. In my case, the entry cannot be seen from RAT nor can i add/delete the same name entry (same like you) However I can still ping or resolve that host name... That was the strange part... I would like to know the answer as well. Regards, Min Wai On

>it cannot afford large size masks for large vectors So, even a standard way of vectorizing remainder in masked or unmasked fashion wouldn’t work, I suppose. Ouch. I suppose VPlan should be able to model this kind of gigantic remainder vector code (when the time comes). Not pretty at all, though. Now, be fully aware that Direction #2 is really a poor (or rather extremely poor) person’s

Amara, >I support this direction Thanks for the support. >but are there actually any real world workloads where gather/scatter scalarisation would be worth it, on any micro-architecture? If we don’t have examples and the compile time cost is non-negligible then I think we’d still like to keep the early >bailouts in some form.’ It's not like I have specific application code in

Ashutosh, Thanks for the repy. Related earlier topic on this appears in the review of the SVML patch (@mmasten). Adding few names from there. https://reviews.llvm.org/D19544 There, I see Hal's review comment "let's start only with the directly-legal calls". Apparently, what we have right now in the trunk is "not legal enough". I'll work on the patch to stop