similar to: Samba vs Windows SAK

In my continued attempt to get winbindd working on a simple domain, I decided to go through the documentation in more detail, searching for some possibly hidden clues. In doing so I came across some instruction that left me a little confused... Fast Start: Cure for Impatience - Domain Member Server http://us2.samba.org/samba/docs/man/howto/FastStart.html#id2512775 The first point is in the

Hey everyone, I'm having some strange responses, and a bit of trouble with getting access to a member server on my domain. I've got Samba running on another Linux box as a PDC, and my Win2k clients can login just fine, and share between one another. The problem comes in with another Linux workstation that's setup as a member server. Here's the relevant smb.conf section from the

Dear list, I am trying to create a three-way table with percent occurrence instead of raw frequencies. However, I cannot get the results I expected: I have the following table: > ftable(table( mannerDF$agem, mannerDF$target, mannerDF$manner )) <snip> 50 bak 0 0 0 0 1 0 pak 0 0 0 0 3 0 sak

I am reading into Java dput output for a matrix, more specifically for a file backed big-matrix. I basically need to lift dimnames for a matrix from dput output. It's no big deal, but the code is very 'hackish' due to the need to get rid of quotes, endlines, parenthesis, etc. I was wondering if i could manipulate to an extent dput output with some options that define it, for example,

Hi all, Sorry to bother you with the potentially not too bright question, but since I cannot get it to work, I'll have to ask someone.. I've got this vector: > token [1] sal skal skal bak b_r d_ gal kal l_r n_r pak p_r [13] sal sl_r sn_r spak sp_r st_r s_ bak d_ gal l_r pak [25] p_r sak sl_r sp_r t_ kal n_r s_ st_r sak kal

Hi all, I've added tail call optimization to x86. This is different from what -tailcallopt does, which forces fastcc function to be tail callable. My changes detect opportunities to do tail call without having to change the ABI. I've looked at the codegen of -tailcallopt and it doesn't look all that good. Running it as a llcbeta option shows it significantly pessimize code in most

On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: > Does anyone actually using it? Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. > I'd prefer to just remove it to clean up the implementation if no one has > any objections. Are you saying that you want to remove LLVM's working TCO and replace it with something that is faster but broken? I think you may

Some frontends for LLVM require that LLVM perform tail call optimization (TCO) for correctness. Internally, LLVM refers to TCO of a non-recursive tail call as sibling call optimization, but I'm going to refer to that generically as TCO. Often, functional languages like Scheme have a language-level requirement that TCO occurs for any call in the tail position, and this is usually why users of

On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: >> Does anyone actually using it? > > Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. Ok, that's all I need to know. > >> I'd prefer to just remove it to clean up the implementation if no one has >> any objections. > > Are you

Dear R-Help, I am trying to compute a new variable, let's call it "target cannon orientation (tco)" based conditionally on old variables, "TargetColor," "CannonOriB," and "CannonOriR." For every case in the data set, if TargetColor is "B" then I want tco to equal the value for that case of CannonOirB, else CannonOriR. I've tried writing

I just upgraded HLVM from LLVM 2.7 to 2.8 and started seeing stack overflows so I think TCO isn't working. Have there been any obvious changes that would cause this? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com

Hello! I thought this was a mistake, sorry. So I created the shared directories and defined which groups can access this directory and includes the users in the defined group. However, the user defined in the group cannot access the directory, gives access denied. Take a look at the settings, if you can give me a direction of where my error is. # smb.conf [SHARE] comment = SHARE path =

Hi, Recently I'm noticing an interesting issue. My CentOS servers are trying to send logs to a logging server via 514/udp, however I'm not receiving anything. I did the following on CentOS *tcpdump -vvv -nn udp -i esn160 port 514* In another session on the same server: *nc syslog-server -u 514* tcpdump started to show me messages like: *[bad udp cksum 0x3ce9 -> 0xb0f5!] SYSLOG,

Evan Cheng wrote: > As far as I can tell only PPC and X86 targets are supporting this option. Does anyone actually using it? I'd prefer to just remove it to clean up the implementation if no one has any objections. Don't know whether that is the same, but my Pure compiler sets llvm::PerformTailCallOpt. Pure needs TCO because it doesn't have any built-in looping constructs. In

My compiler is generating a bunch of code including the following line: %57 = call fastcc i32 @aux(%1* %0, %1 %1, %1 %46, i32 0, %4 %2) ; <i32> [#uses=1] ret i32 %57 The program works fine as long as this isn't a tail call. If I compile via a .ll and insert "tail" by hand, the program segfaults. However, if I make it a tail call and return an undef i8* or void instead

I'm trying to figure out an intelligent way to install apps on the network server, and be able to install once and have all the clients use this. However, it seems like most installations modify the registry and seem to demand a client-by-client installation. Am I missing something on this? Can someone provide me some hints or references to help this? (And is anyone thinking about a SMS/ZEN

Jon Harrop wrote: > I've come up with the following minimal repro that segfaults on my machine: Jon, were you able to resolve this? FWIW, TOT is causing all kinds of weird segfaults related to tail calls in my Pure interpreter, too (at least on x86-64). In my case these seem to be limited to the JIT, however (batch-compiled Pure programs via opt+llc all work fine, even with TCO), so

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: >> I've come up with the following minimal repro that segfaults on my machine: > > Jon, were you able to resolve this? > > FWIW, TOT is causing all kinds of weird segfaults related to tail calls > in my Pure interpreter, too (at least on x86-64). In my case these

On Saturday 06 February 2010 02:42:47 Evan Cheng wrote: > On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: > >> Does anyone actually using it? > > > > Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. > > Ok, that's all I need to know. > > >> I'd prefer to just remove it to

?I want to take advantage of my multicore CPU to speed up a loop in a simulation program.? I didn?t write the code, but the iterations appear independent to me, at least in the sense that the results of one loop do not depend on previous ones.? Right now I?m relegated to a Windows box that runs Windows 7.? These appear to be the options: ? Pnmath-appears to parallelize non-BLAS routine but