similar to: If WAN is broken I have a problem with local connect

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 9 September 2014 02:18, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> > wrote: > > The current implementations actually return 0. Can you point out where > that > > doesn't hold please? > > With the current implementation... > > int foo(int a) { > return

Hi, I have a samba installation on a sun E250. It works in servermodus to authenticate users with a Windows-PDC. Now I've the problem when a user connects to a networkdrive on the sun, sometimes it works, but sometimes it fails. then he would ask to input his password again and after 3 times his account is deactivated on the PDC. in the logfile from the pdc I see during a connect first

On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 04:48:20AM -0700, Renato Golin wrote: > I'm in favour for adding them ASAP, but we might need an ifdef to avoid > creating unnecessary (or conflicting) symbols for non-EABI targets. Sure, it makes sense. > A proper solution would be to have: > > LOCAL_LABEL(divby0): > #ifdef __ARM_EABI__ > b __aeabi_idiv0 > #else > mov r0, #0 >

Hi, I noticed that when dividing with signed 8-bit values the IR uses a 32-bit signed divide, however, when unsigned 8-bit values are used the IR uses an 8-bit unsigned divide. Why not use a 8-bit signed divide when using 8-bit signed values? Here is the C code and IR: char idiv8(char a, char b) { char c = a / b; return c; } define signext i8 @idiv8(i8 signext %a, i8 signext %b) nounwind

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > Why not adjust this instead? > > I was just being conservative. I don't know what else depends on this > library and I don't want to change things outside of my scope. > The current implementations actually return 0. Can you point out where that doesn't hold please? If you

hello I have a asterisk server on WAN, and one server on LAN. And now there are some users on the LAN server. Users on the LAN server need to make phone calls to PSTN through the WAN server. Now on WAN server, there is a user account for the LAN server to register, and it's an account with multiple ports.(So more than one users on the LAN server can make phone calls through the WAN server at

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Nowicki, Tyler <tyler.nowicki at intel.com> wrote: > I understand, but this sounds like legalization. Does every architecture trigger an overflow exception, as opposed to setting a bit? Perhaps it makes more sense to do this in the backends that trigger an overflow exception? The IR instruction has undefined behavior on overflow. This has nothing to do

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 6 September 2014 22:46, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> > wrote: > > I did dig into this further and it seems that they are, in fact, > considered > > part of the RT-ABI :-(. Ive committed a simple conforming > implementation in > > SVN r217322. > >

On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: >> In short, I agree with your observations that these intrinsics are not an >> obvious slam-dunk compared to making the explicit control flow, but I think >> that the intrinsics do give enough flexibility on the LLVM side that it >> would be great if front-ends used them rather than rolling

>sample setups of freeswan working with shorewall? I just implemented this a few days ago. In my case it was the simple scenario of two private subnets (with different private network numbers!) already equipped with Shorewall firewalls on which I added Freeswan. The hardest part was being patient enough for the other end''s firewall (a 486= ) to compile the patched kernel. I basically

We recently installed Samba 3.x server on Linux system (RHEL 3.0, using stock RH samba packages). We are observing following messages in logs: lib/access.c:check_access(328) and access is denied. I know why we get access denied: we have restricted "hosts allow =" setting. My question is: why are we getting connection requests in first place? I think something is advertising this

I am very much in favor of having a div instruction with well defined div-by-zero and overflow behavior. The undefined behavior on certain values for LLVM intrinsics has been a major pain point for us in Julia, because adding the extra branches just kills performance and we know that there is an X86 instruction that just does what we want. Anyway, this was brought up briefly above, but want to

Ok...I'm stuck. Environment: Suse 8.0, with Samba 2.2.3a, no domain controller (workgroup only). Client machine is NT4 Workstation, SP5. Access to disk shares is fine, no problems, using encrypted PWs. I'm trying to set up a [print$] share, as described in chapter 6 of the Samba-HOWTO-Collection. The symptom that I get is that when I attempt to load the driver to the print$ share, I

Yes, it's a bug. Please review https://reviews.llvm.org/D31716 On 4/5/2017 3:50 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 21 March 2017 at 18:32, Peter Jakubek via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> I think the current implementation for the call "bl __aeabi_idiv0" in >> builtins\arm\udivsi3.S is broken. >> At least for the case that __aeabi_idiv0

skeet@Bridgewater.EDU wrote: > > > Basically what it looks like to me is that an smbd process is spawning a > child which goes defunct for some reason I have yet to determine and the > smbd process hangs out there waiting for the child. Of course the child is > never going to answer being defunct, so the parent smbd process sticks > around and keeps its oplocks. > That

Hi list, I can successfully build the driver modules; hdlc, dlci, syncppp, and lmc from the 2.6.18-128.1.14 kernel source rpm, and have managed to create a 'wan kmod' rpm. It all works fine for IPv4, but now I need IPv6 for ppp connections, which doesn't work for me. I think I'll need to back port Krzysztof Halasa's 'ppp for generic hdlc' patches to the

<P>Hi list,<BR><BR>is it possible to create something like a ISDN-WAN-WAN-ISDN bridge?<BR></P> <P>We have to change our location, but our number and the telephone system should shoulb stay the same.</P> <P>&nbsp;</P> <P>kind regards,<BR>Patrick Stuckenberger</P>

Is anybody using Asterisk with a dual WAN router (Xincom XC-DPG602, Hawking H2WR54G, Fortinet FortiGate-60, SonicWall etc) ? -- #Joseph

Hello All, We have 2 Samba servers in our domain at our site. Server A) is a Primary Domain Controller that everyone logs into and Server B) just has drives shared on it. We have another site with a Server C) running MARS NWE we are connected to via a 256k WAN link. If we were to run Samba on this Server C) and set it up like Server B) i.e. Have all 3 servers in the same domain all with one

ClarkConnect Home 3.2 eth0 - WAN - inet - ip:192.168.1.2 gw:192.168.1.1 (connected to my www.woosh.co.nz gatway) wlan - WAN - private community wireless networt - ip:10.252.16.16 gw:10.252.16.1 eth1 - LAN - ip:192.168.2.1 # route add -net 10.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 gw 10.252.16.1 [root@bowenvale etc]# route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface