similar to: session user name win XP

Hi there, Would there be any reason that my HP Laserjet 6L has a totally different preference panel when i attach it to my Linux host in stead of on the local Windows machine? For example, all setting for multiple pages per sheet (2-up, 4-up) are gone. I am installing the printer with exactly the same driver in both cases. What can be wrong? (I'm running Windows XP, Debian with Samba

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi readers of this list, I have this nasty problem, that looks fixed, but everytime something else annoying happens... - From SuSE10.0, there are problems with browsing LAN, due to susefirewall, was said...and partialy this is true.. All kind of strange things, incompatibilities, or bugs, keep me from just browsing shares in the network... I filed a

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> // In C >> void foo() { >> int c; >> if (c) print("X"); >> escape(&c); // escape is an empty function >> } >> >> which I think is not UB in C (is it?), but will boil down to the kind >> of IR above. > > I'm

Hi Andy, Andrew Trick wrote: >> On Sep 23, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Christof Douma <Christof.Douma at arm.com <mailto:Christof.Douma at arm.com>> wrote: >> >> I can’t help to ask. Why not define a wrapping nsw instruction as UB, instead of “delayed UB” aka poison? I believe we >> have the notion of poison solely to ease the movement of instructions. In my example

Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith > <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >>> // In C >>> void foo() { >>> int c; >>> if (c) print("X"); >>> escape(&c); // escape is an empty function >>> } >>> >>>

Hi Michael, Please keep in mind non-C/C++ frontends. For example, in Rust, we promise to avoid all undefined behavior in safe code. There is no reasonable compositional analysis that can statically detect stack overflows (I know safety-critical systems are subjected such analyses, but those could not reasonably be enforced on all Rust code -- most of them just forbid recursion, for example), so

Hi all, see my reply inline. Cheers, Jan-Pieter 2015-04-26 7:23 GMT+02:00 "Thomas B. R?cker" <thomas at ruecker.fi>: > On 04/25/2015 07:32 PM, Jan-Pieter wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I am a long-time user of Icecast, always without problems. However i > > made a new setup using icecast 2.4.1 on a fresh and quick CentOS VPS. > > EPEL package or from

Hal Finkel wrote: > But it is not all optimizations that are the problem. Rather, it > seems like a select few (e.g. things involving collapsing allowed > non-determinism in atomics), and losing those optimizations seems > better than generally losing function-attribute deduction. If we go by the langref, then optimizations that fold undef are also problematic (though most C/C++

hey, is there a way to run tinc on a (linux) box, with a public ip, but on which i don't have root privileges ? the server just connects nodes (behind natted firewall) & relays their traffic, so no need for tap/tun interface on the box itself. ptr_ -- http://www.L45.be/voidpointer 0493 52 5009

> On Jul 21, 2017, at 10:55 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2017-07-21 22:44 GMT-07:00 Peter Lawrence <peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net <mailto:peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net>>: > Mehdi, > Hal’s transformation only kicks in in the *presence* of UB > > No, sorry I entirely disagree with this assertion: I believe we

Dave, Dead code elimination is generally done in a pass called dead code elimination, Can you give concrete examples why the same would not be true for UB code elimination ? Yes, speculatively hoisting code requires it to be UB-free, but that has nothing to do with UBCE deleting entire blocks of code because of the existence of UB. The former requires an analysis proving UB-absense, the

Dave, The way I see it there should be just one pass that implements deleting UB (maybe it would come to be called UBCE), and that one pass should have a command line option simply for the reason than all passes should have one. Peter Lawrence. > On Jul 26, 2017, at 10:02 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:23 PM

David, -fsanitize=undefined sounds great, but is not quite what I want. I recently ran into a problem with "CodeGen/MachineSink.cpp” [*], for a target that has to expand Select into control flow. The original IR had two select in a row that were based on the same condition, so the CMP that sets the FLAGS reg in the second select was MCSE’ed to the earlier CMP in the first

Not sure the semantics of "used" you propose is sufficient. AFAIU the proposal, "used" could only be used in cases where the function will always trigger UB if poison is passed as argument. The semantics of attributes is usually the other way around, since function calls need to have UB as strong as the worst behavior of the function. If a function may for some reason trigger

Hi Johannes, >> Not sure the semantics of "used" you propose is sufficient. AFAIU the >> proposal, "used" could only be used in cases where the function will >> always trigger UB if poison is passed as argument. The semantics of >> attributes is usually the other way around, since function calls need >> to have UB as strong as the worst

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:40 AM Peter Lawrence <peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Dave, > Dead code elimination is generally done in a pass called dead > code elimination, > Can you give concrete examples why the same would not be true for UB code > elimination ? > I haven't actually looked at how optimizations on the basis of the code being UB-free

Mehdi, Hal’s transformation only kicks in in the *presence* of UB, and it does not matter how that UB got there, whether by function inlining or without function inlining. The problem with Hal’s argument is that the compiler does not have a built in ouija board with which it can conjure up the spirit of the author of the source code and find out if the UB was intentional with the

Sean, Let me re-phrase a couple words to make it perfectly clear > On Jul 21, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Peter Lawrence <peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Sean, > > Dan Gohman’s “transform” changes a loop induction variable, but does not change the CFG, > > Hal’s “transform” deletes blocks out of the CFG, fundamentally altering it. > > These are two totally

Hi all, I am a long-time user of Icecast, always without problems. However i made a new setup using icecast 2.4.1 on a fresh and quick CentOS VPS. The issue is that starting icecast gives a segmentation fault at around 80% of all starts. No core file nor a entry in error.log is posted. In the remaining 20% of the starts icecast start with no problem. Contents of the error.log with a succesfull

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:25 PM Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Hal Finkel wrote: > > > But it is not all optimizations that are the problem. Rather, it > > seems like a select few (e.g. things involving collapsing allowed > > non-determinism in atomics), and losing those optimizations seems > > better than generally losing