similar to: Backward compatibility

Yesterday, I was having a problem with db:migrate. I was told my version of rails was too old, and I needed to install it from gems instead of the version in my version of Ubuntu. Since then, I''ve done that, and I built ruby 1.8.4 from source and installed it. The installation was to /usr/local/bin. As my distribution had put ruby 1.8.3 in /usr/bin, I renamed that and put a link to

Once more, with feeling. I''m trying to implement using xrc_replace so as to use a RichTextCtrl in a form created by FormBuilder. The problem is that I can''t even create a RichTextCtrl. When I try to, I get a segmentation fault. I''ve attached the files that are causing this. I''m running wxRuby on a box running an up-to-date PCLinuxOS distro. I''ve

I''m working my way through the Pragmatic Programmer book on RoR. Following their examples, I have the following code in a controller: begin @product = Product.find(params[:id]) rescue flash[:notice] = "Invalid product" logger.error("Attempt to access invalid product #{params[:id]}") redirect_to :action => :index else @cart = find_cart

I''m new to ROR, and am working my way through the Agile Web Development Book. In the test application, the authors tell me to test my database connection by performing "rake db:migrate". When I do, I get the error "Don''t know how to build task ''db:migrate''" I''ve been looking around at the files, and I see a reference to a

Hi Justin, There are some backward incompatible features of PTX; for example, special registers are redefined as v4i32 (they were v4i16) in PTX 2.0. And CUDA 4.0 was rolled out last week. I heard that some instructions are deprecated. I am not sure how stable (or unstable) PTX specification is. Do you have a rough assessment of its stability? If PTX specification is still fast evolving, I would

Hi Guus, I know this comes up from time to time. So it is time to update our expectations. Is there a roadmap for a 1.1 backward compatibility already? -rsd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.tinc-vpn.org/pipermail/tinc/attachments/20141228/fcb2b44a/attachment.html>

Hi all, Turns out there''s a small backward compatibility problem in 0.22.2. If you''ve got clients in older versions sending reports to a daemon running the newer version, you''ll run into a problem because I renamed the Puppet::Metric class to Puppet::Util::Metric. I''ve committed a fix to svn, but it''s not a big enough problem to require a new

Hello folks, I had to make a bit change in speex.pc in FreeBSD ports to make it more backward compatibility with the other ports (applications). Before: ================================== # pkg-config --cflags speex -I/usr/local/include ================================== After: ================================== # pkg-config --cflags speex -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include/speex

Hello Syslinux Team, Syslinux 5.xx / 6.xx are currently showing some backward compatibility issues. Between the ML and the IRC, there have been some comments / reports regarding memtest, older kernels, plop boot manager, ifplop.c32, hdt.c32... In some cases, the problems were seen when booting with some specific variant of Syslinux 5.xx / 6.xx (say, ISOLINUX only, or PXELINUX only); or with

On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 10:33:47AM -0200, Raul Dias wrote: > I know this comes up from time to time. So it is time to update our > expectations. > > Is there a roadmap for a 1.1 backward compatibility already? The roadmap looks like this: 1.1pre1: backwards compatible with 1.0.x 1.1pre2: backwards compatible with 1.0.x, but not 1.1pre1 ... 1.1preN: backwards compatible with 1.0.x,

And how distant are we from a 1.1.0? :) On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Guus Sliepen <guus at tinc-vpn.org> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 10:33:47AM -0200, Raul Dias wrote: > > > I know this comes up from time to time. So it is time to update our > > expectations. > > > > Is there a roadmap for a 1.1 backward compatibility already? > > The roadmap

Hi All, I'm working with llvm experimenting the rich frame work and learning the compiler behaviour. can any one help me a way to back port the solution files to VisualStudio 6.0 project files. It would help me a lot if some one can suggest some thing so that I can work on the current code. Thanks in Advance, -Vikas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hello, Vikas > can any one help me a way to back port the solution files to > VisualStudio 6.0 project files. Unfortunately, this is pretty useless: VC6 C++ is deeply broken in order to compile LLVM. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

Quite often I get to work on an old bug, where an old ll/bc file is attached as a testcase. These files, in most cases (if not all), need to be converted somehow to the latest format, for the trunk version to be able to parse it without an error. So a few questions arise: 1. Is there a standard way to convert an old ll/bc to the latest? If not, what is the common approach for these cases? 2.

Does anyone have anything else to say about .bc/.ll compatibility? It is important to be clear to users about what compatibility we provide. I'd like to get consensus about this and put it in the docs somewhere. -- Sean Silva On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Tim Northover

> On Jun 17, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> 2. Metadata compatibility. We already had precedence of introducing >>> incompatible changes into metadata format in the past within release. >>> Should we use relaxes rules for metadata compatibility? >> >> I think we have a special case for debug metadata (and

I have ruby 1.8.5 installed. Everytime I enter a rails command, I get a long stream of warnings telling me that the colon is being obsoleted, that a semicolon should be used instead. Does anyone know how to stop these warnings from coming up? They get in the way of real messages from rails. tia ---Michael -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On 18 June 2014 17:10, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Do others agree that this is the case or at least that this would be a >> >> reasonable balance? >> > IMO it's easier to be compatible on .ll level, no? >> >> That is not my experience with the bitcode format. The way the API is >> structured makes it really easy

Hi all, Hobbeswalsh on IRC has discovered a backward compatibility issue in 0.24.0, preventing 0.23.x clients working well with 0.24.0 servers. Specifically, you can''t specify relationships to builtin resources when the client is 0.23.x, although specifying relationships to defined resources still works. The problem is that prior to 0.24.0 there was no central class

A bit of history first: Back when we transitioned from bytecode to bitcode (2.0) we had a tool called llvm-upgrade which would read .ll files from 1.9 and output 2.0 format which could then be passed to llvm-as to produce bitcode. The release notes for 2.3 note that llvm-upgrade was not supported any more. During the 2.X development we tried to keep reading older bitcodes. Once we got to 3.1,