similar to: patching util-linux-2.11f fails

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Red Hat, Inc. Red Hat Security Advisory Synopsis: New util-linux packages available to fix /bin/login pam problem Advisory ID: RHSA-2001:132-04 Issue date: 2001-10-11 Updated on: 2001-10-16 Product: Red Hat Linux Keywords: login pam pam_limits Cross references:

CC please on any replies - I'm not subscribed. mount/linux_fs.h, struct ext2_super_block: u_char s_padding1; should be: u_int16_t s_padding1; I think? Also it's not clear which version of util-linux to use. Patch fails against 2.11f. Sorry if this is old news. Mitch

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Red Hat, Inc. Red Hat Security Advisory Synopsis: New util-linux packages available to fix /bin/login pam problem Advisory ID: RHSA-2001:132-03 Issue date: 2001-10-11 Updated on: 2001-10-16 Product: Red Hat Linux Keywords: login pam pam_limits Cross references:

I am running a RH6/7ish system on an abit bp6 with 2.4-test12 -smp running rock solid. I have a new drive that I want to use to test out a journa;ing file system on, and thus far have not been happy with reiserfs and have been waiting for ext3 on 2.4 (I had been considering xfs as an alternative but from what i've read it's a little too robust for my needs). Anyway, I guess I am

>> Is bit-peeling going to be real (or just a rumor forever)? > Apparently the RC3 streams are capable of being bit peeled, however the > tool to do so was looking likely to be quite complex. I believe the plan > was to have RC4 produce streams that left better hints for the peeling > tool, so as to make the tool simpler and faster, but I doubt we'll see it > until

Hi, Aditya, I took a look but I was hoping for a simpler example. And something that is more "usual". As Florian mentioned, these branches are on undefs. But thank you. Best, Stefanos Στις Δευ, 23 Μαρ 2020 στις 1:16 μ.μ., ο/η Florian Hahn < florian_hahn at apple.com> έγραψε: > > > > On Mar 21, 2020, at 23:13, Aditya K via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at

Hi all, [For the uninitiated: a "peeler" is a program that transforms a Vorbis stream into a smaller, (somewhat) lower quality Vorbis stream, and does so quickly, by just throwing out some data.] After having prototyped several peelers that aim to peel to a certain filesize, or to a certain quality, with mixed success, I've now taken a different route: a peeler that aims for the

Hi all, [For the uninitiated: a "peeler" is a program that transforms a Vorbis stream into a smaller, (somewhat) lower quality Vorbis stream, and does so quickly, by just throwing out some data.] After having prototyped several peelers that aim to peel to a certain filesize, or to a certain quality, with mixed success, I've now taken a different route: a peeler that aims for the

>> Are you saying that, in the LLVM IR, it would be legal to have an >> llvm.eh.exception that *isn't* dominated by convokes (because there's >> a direct branch to that catch block), and in that case the call >> returns an undefined value? > > this is already the case (with invoke substituted for convoke). Good to know. It would be nice if this was clearly

I just read some of the discussion on the list about 'bitrate peeling' and remembered an interview of Monty that I have read recently. In it he says that Vorbis uses MCDTs <sp> and that these are theoretically reversable. And now, I learn that theoretically we can use bitrate peeling to make smaller files from larger ones, and that leads to my question. Could I theoretically

The following errata for CentOS-2 have been built and uploaded to the centos mirror: RHSA-2005:782-01 Moderate: util-linux and mount security update Files available: losetup-2.11g-9.i386.rpm mount-2.11g-9.i386.rpm util-linux-2.11f-20.8.i386.rpm More details are available from the RedHat web site at https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh21as-errata.html The easy way to make sure you are up to date

> From: Beni Cherniavsky [mailto:cben@users.sf.net] > Sent: 26 September 2003 10:35 > To: vorbis@xiph.org > Subject: Re: [vorbis] streaming > > - Vorbis is designed to allow "peeling": if you truncate packets, you > still get a legal Vorbis stream but with lower quality. This should > allow very effecient streaming of multiple bitrates from the same >

>> As I understand it, when you generate native code, at each landing pad >> the exception pointer appears magically in a well-known native >> register. > Well, it's not entirely magical. :-) It gets the exception object by calling > __cxa_get_exception_ptr __cxa_get_exception_ptr returns an "adjusted" pointer to the exception object, but you still have to

Hi, in a recent review [0], Florian Hahn helped me to realize something that was rather surprising to me: The widely popular and very useful function llvm::Value::stripPointerCasts() can return a value with a different bit pattern than the input. Now, I think this should not be the case but I want the hear other opinions. Before I go on, please not that there is at least one location in

Sorry for the off-topic post, but there is such a wealth of knowledge here that I thought someone might have suggestions. Geoff MacLachlan and David Peel have a program - EMMIX - available for mixture modelling. It is only available as FORTRAN source code and is "downloadable" from Geoff's site. The code is reputed to run on Unix machines and is compilable according to

Hi all, I'm looking into congestion control for Vorbis RTP and I'm wondering if it's not too early to define a mechanism which would help bitrate peeling. The client can send a standard receiver report stating the interarrival jitter and packets loss. Once a certain jitter/loss point is reached the server peels off a pre-determined bitrate fraction from the stream, eg 128k would

Hi Jay, > Are you saying that, in the LLVM IR, it would be legal to have an > llvm.eh.exception that *isn't* dominated by convokes (because there's > a direct branch to that catch block), and in that case the call > returns an undefined value? this is already the case (with invoke substituted for convoke). And it would be up to codegen to "peel it > out into its own

Hi. I recently migrated two machines from ext2 to ext3. Kernels (nearly identical) are 2.4.9-ac9 + preemptivity-patch + wrr-patch. The Installations are based on Mandrake 7.2 + 8.0. Also I have e2fstools-1.23 newly compiled on them. Both machines have two ext3 partitions (root + multimedia-data). On one machine I see a .journal file on both partitions, on the other machine (Mandrake-8.0)

Hello! For the second time I've tripped onto this banana peel. :) I had 2 sieve files in a directory that I wanted to compile: sievec *.sieve The result of this is that first.sieve is compiled into second.sieve instead of first.svbin, thus destroying the source of second.sieve. Please consider this a bug report. :) Good luck, Reio

Hi Stefanos, Thanks for your comments. I added both as reviewer. > One question though. Are you sure that this: > This helps with LICM when instructions inside a conditional is loop invariant  > is not achieved with the current LoopRotate pass? Because AFAIK, it does. Basically it inserts > a guard (that branches to the preheader) and then passes like LICM hoist invariant