similar to: How Can I disable wine auto Association of .exe files

On Wednesday 23 August 2006 07:25, wine-users-request@winehq.org wrote: > you can't double click an exe, you have > to run it with wine, ie "wine game.exe". there is a way to make it so that > you can double click exe files, but that way makes your system vulnerable > to windows virii, so you should really stick to the standard. On my Debian Sid system, I CAN double

I have two computers with wine installed. The first is a Fedora Core 6 with all updates running wine-0.9.25. The second is a RHEL4 with wine-0.9.27 compiled from source (./configure, make, make install). In both cases I have a dual-boot partition with a WindowsXP NTFS, and I can install and run ntfs-3g with no problem. In the first system, I can navigate to the location of NOTEPAD.EXE and invoke

Hi- I recently updated my Wine from 9.something to the latest version. Before I updated, I could run Windows apps from a terminal command line by just entering the app name, but now I get (for example): Code: /home/johnm/bin/LINT-NT.EXE: /home/johnm/bin/LINT-NT.EXE: cannot execute binary file which I guess means it is just trying to execute the app as a 'normal' Linux app. What is it

Dear all, I noticed the following bug in points.formula > library(DAAG) > data(roller) > fm <- lm(depression ~ weight, data=roller) > plot( depression ~ weight, data=roller, type="n") > abline(fm) > attach(roller) > points( depression~weight, subset=1:7) > points( depression~weight, subset=8:10, col="blue") Error in if (length(x) == l) x[s] else x :

A bit of a perennial I'm afraid. My wife has filled up her iPhone 6 with photos, and wants them moved onto my computer. I'm running CentOS 7 patched about 30 minutes ago. Needless to say the computer can't see the data on the iPhone, though it does recognise the phone as an iPhone. Any suggestions (well any that don't involve a steam roller, sledge hammer or GBH to the whole of

Will someone please make me a believer? I have just started using Linux. I have Ubuntu 7.10 and tried to install Wine so that I may play certain games. While trying to install, I got the following message... Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible

Hi all, I'm cross-compiling speex for a GNU/Linux ARM target. I want to compile only the libraries, and not the speex executables. I don't have a libogg cross-compiled, and would prefer the need to have to set it up. Unfortunately: 1/ the speex executables depend on libogg header files, although, the speex executables are only compiled if the libogg header files are available 2/ the

> - Inline ASM (I think Eric said at the Hackers Lab that he might be > willing to do this) I am, yes. > - For others who want to help test, compiling and running your > codebases on QEMU (no crypto extensions) Some reasonable description of how this works would be awesome. > > - Feature parity - to the level found in the ARM64 and AArch64 backends today As a note this

There are at least 3 active proposals to add reassociative optimizations in IR: [1] D41574 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D41574>- a new pass for reassociation/factoring [2] D46336 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46336> - enhance -instcombine to do more reassociation/factoring [3] D45842 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D45842> - add to the existing -reassociate pass to enable factoring

/* Cc: samba list */ Vincent Marty wrote: > Hi Ogi ! > Did you find a solution to the problem you described in a post in > linux.samba in dec 2004 ? > I get the same messages from Fedora Core 3 when accessing to a iMax > under Mac Os 10.3. Hi! Since I started to use Debian kernel 2.6.10 (in unstable), the problem disappeared. Fedora Core 3 uses 2.6.10 too so I don't know

Hi, I encountered some bugs in Reassociate [1] where we are hitting some assertions: assert(!Duplicates.count(Factor) && "Shouldn't have two constant factors, missed a canonicalize"); assert(NumAddedValues > 1 && "Each occurrence should contribute a value”); My understanding is that these assertions enforce that when processing an

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> ( >>> ​I came across this issue in

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM

( ​I came across this issue in the context of D46336 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46336>. ​ ​ Thanks, Sanjay, for starting this discussion.) If ​we will move ​reassociation, or keep additional ones ​,​ out of instcombine, ​open questions for me would be ​​: 1. Since -reassociate isn't a fixed point pass, we might need to repeat "-instcombine -reassociate" multiple times to

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > ( > ​I came across this issue in the context of > D46336 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46336>. > ​ ​ > Thanks, Sanjay, for starting this discussion.) > > If > ​we will > move > ​reassociation, > or keep additional ones > ​,​ > out of instcombine,

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I presume you mean, instead of assigning function arguments distinct ranks > (http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/Reassociate_8cpp_source.html#l00282), we > should group function arguments in favor of existing pairings. Existing = pairings reassociate already chose before *not* existing

Hi all, I have a very simple test case (thanks to bugpoint) that hit an assert in reassociate. (the assert is (C->getType()->isIntOrIntVectorTy() && "Cannot NEG a nonintegral value!"), function getNeg) The function is taking a Constant as argument, but the assert does not expect an undef. I’m not sure whose responsibility is it to handle that (caller?). Do we have to

> On May 8, 2018, at 9:50 AM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > 1. The reassociate pass that exists right now was *originally* (AFAIK) written to enable CSE/GVN to do better. Agreed. The original mindset included a (naive) belief that going with a canonical form was better than teaching redundancy elimination to handle abstractions (as a matter

Whoops, forgot llvmdev On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > So i started by looking at naryreassociate, whose pass > description/reason listed for doing it is actually describes bug in > reassociate, and discovered that, in fact, reassociate seems broken, > and should be doing the right thing on most of your testcases. > >

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:15 AM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM,