similar to: Windows can't see Samba server in Network Neigborhood

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 3000 matches similar to: "Windows can't see Samba server in Network Neigborhood"

2000 May 26
0
Can't see my Samba/Linux server on Win95 browser
Hello, I am new on Samba and need to set up Samba server on a Linux server for Windows 95 clients. I installed Samba from RedHat Linux 6.1 CD. My smb.conf has Workgroup = MYGROUP Server String = Samba Server Encrypt passwords = yes Smb passwd file = /etc/smbpasswd After this configuration, I can map drive from Win95 machine using NET USE command. But, I can not see my linux server (or Samba
2002 Feb 12
1
intermittent network neigborhood
Hello, I have a WINS setup where my clients are on a different subnet. Some can see the samba server and some cannot. All can login to the domain fine and all can explicitly define a share like \\server\share but only a few can BROWSE network neighborhood. Any ideas on what I should be looking for here? thank you! -- Terry Davis Systems Administrator BirdDog Solutions, Inc. (402)
2005 Nov 21
2
Help for problem samba between linux and windows
Hi, Excuse my poor english !! I have a problem samba between linux and windows. I explain my actual situation : - windows 2000 SP4 - share a directory my_windows : d:\jagodin\partage - linux Redhat ES 4 - kernel version 2.6.9-5 in /etc/fstab : //my_windows/partage /export/home/cerit/jagodin/partage smbfs
2007 Dec 05
1
Does anyone know why sometimes a PDC appears in the Network neigborhood, and sometimes it doesn't?
The subject says it all, I think. At home I have a PDC (Linux with Samba), and I have Win98 and Win 95(!) clients. And sometimes the domain name (workgroup name) is visble in the Network neigborhood, and sometimes it is not. I also got the impression that placing a link in the file NETHOOD makes a difference, but I am not sure yet. The PDC is visible, that is, it can be PINGed, I can connect
2012 Nov 13
2
[LLVMdev] loop carried dependence analysis?
Erkan, you're right. Sorry about that. Attached is the most recent version. Preston Hi Preston, > I am trying to use DA as well. I used your example and commands that you > wrote in order to get DA information. > However, it does not report any dependence info. > I am wondering whether your local copy differs from the one on the > repository ? > Thanks. > Erkan.
2012 Nov 13
2
[LLVMdev] loop carried dependence analysis?
Hi all, Unfortunately, all my Hunks are failed when I apply : patch -p1 < da.patch command. The problem might be due to the fact that da.patch file was created against revision 167549, but I am on revision 167719 (I believe the most recent one). I am not sure if this cause the problem ? But Preston may I ask you to generate the patch file against revison 167719 ? Thanks in advance. On
2004 Jan 15
1
Re: pxegrub + memdisk + dos + undi
sorry - i must have overlooked the part where you mentioned that.. my fault. What software are you looking at ? Altiris maybe ? I am, ofcourse interested in the option you are looking for. Please keep this list updated. Best regards, Rijk -----Original Message----- From: Aaron McSorley [mailto:aaron.mcsorley at amd.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 4:56 PM To: rbitter at cntnl.jnj.com Cc:
2012 Nov 13
0
[LLVMdev] loop carried dependence analysis?
Preston, thanks for the explanation and patch. Now it's printing the direction and distance values. On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com>wrote: > Erkan, you're right. Sorry about that. > Attached is the most recent version. > > Preston > > > > Hi Preston, >> I am trying to use DA as well. I used your example
2018 Sep 11
2
linear-scan RA
The phi instruction is irrelevant; just the way I think about things. The question is if the allocator believes that t0 and t2 interfere. Perhaps the coalescing example was too simple. In the general case, we can't coalesce without a notion of interference. My worry is that looking at interference by ranges of instruction numbers leads to inaccuracies when a range is introduced by a copy.
2012 Oct 03
3
[LLVMdev] Does LLVM optimize recursive call?
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy at grenoble-inp.fr> wrote: > Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com> writes: >> Think about costs asymptotically; that's what matters. Calls and >> returns require constant time, just like addition and multiplication. > > Constant time, but not necessarily constant memory. > > Deep recursion
2013 May 17
3
[LLVMdev] Inlining sqrt library function in X86
Using the following example program #include <math.h> double f(double d){ return sqrt(d); } and compiling it with "clang -O3 ...", I was trying to determine what it would take to get the X86 code generator to replace the call to sqrt with a sqrtsd instruction inline. It turns out that it could do exactly that, were it not for the fact that in the function
2012 Nov 02
2
[LLVMdev] DependenceAnalysis and PR14241
On 11/02/2012 11:02 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> >> To: "preston briggs" <preston.briggs at gmail.com> >> Cc: "Benjamin Kramer" <benny.kra at gmail.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >> Sent: Friday, November
2012 Nov 14
0
[LLVMdev] loop carried dependence analysis?
On 13.11.2012, at 10:46, erkan diken <erkandiken at gmail.com> wrote: Hi all, Unfortunately, all my Hunks are failed when I apply : patch -p1 < da.patch command. The problem might be due to the fact that da.patch file was created against revision 167549, but I am on revision 167719 (I believe the most recent one). I am not sure if this cause the problem ? But Preston may I ask you to
2018 Sep 11
2
linear-scan RA
Yes, I quite liked the things I've read about the PBQP allocator. Given what the hardware folks have to go through to get 1% improvements in scalar code, spending 20% (or whatever) compile time (under control of a flag) seems like nothing. And falling back on "average code" is a little disingenuous. People looking for performance don't care about average code; they care about
2018 Sep 11
2
linear-scan RA
Hi, Using Chaitin's approach, removing a copy via coalescing could expose more opportunities for coalescing. So he would iteratively rebuild the interference graph and check for more opportunities. Chaitin was also careful to make sure that the source and destination of a copy didn't interfere unnecessarily (because of the copy alone); that is, his approach to interference was very
2012 Jan 26
0
[LLVMdev] dense maps
My problem was that the constructor for DenseMap has an undocumented constraint. explicit DenseMap(unsigned NumInitBuckets = 0) { init(NumInitBuckets); } if given an explicit argument, requires that the argument be a power of 2. It's checked by an assert in init(), but for some reason my code didn't trip the assertion. Is there a special way I must make to enable asserts? Thanks,
2018 Sep 11
2
linear-scan RA
> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:25 PM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:11 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com <mailto:preston.briggs at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> The phi instruction is irrelevant; just the way I think about things. >> The question is if the allocator believes that t0 and t2
2018 Sep 10
2
linear-scan RA
> The underlying liveness datastructure is a list of ranges where each vreg is alive > (ranges in terms of instructions numbered). I remember a couple of later linear scan > papers describing the same thing (Traub et.al. being the first if I remember correctly). > That should be as accurate as you can get in terms of liveness information. It depends on the details. For example, given
2012 Jan 26
5
[LLVMdev] dense maps
Reading the LLVM Programmer's Manual, the description of DenseSet mentions: *Note that DenseSet has the same requirements for the value type that DenseMap <http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#dss_densemap> has.* But when I read about DenseMap, I don't really see any requirements for the values, just a warning about space. On the other hand, the *keys* have special
2012 Nov 02
2
[LLVMdev] DependenceAnalysis and PR14241
On 11/02/2012 10:21 AM, Preston Briggs wrote: > > My initial guess is that a conservative fix is quick and small (make > sure the underlying pointers are loop invariant, otherwise give up). A > better approach would be to somehow turn code like the example into > array references that can be analyzed. I'll need to think about this and > do some reading. Hi Preston, I looked