similar to: LDAP GID<->SID without winbind?

Hey everyone, I'm preparing for a transition in which I'll be moving everything (PDC, WINS server, big file shares) off an old Linux server running Samba 2.2.7 onto a much newer Linux system running Samba 3.0.22. In the process, I'll be switching from smbpasswd (only thing supported under Samba 2.x, if I understand correctly) to ldapsam on Samba 3.x. I want to keep the same domain

I'm having a weird problem which I think may be a bug, but I'm not sure, so I think I'll describe it and see if it rings a bell with anyone. Basically, the story is this: there's a file owned by a Unix user "lshaw" (i.e. me) and whose group ownership is "engineer". Now, I open this file on one Windows XP computer, then go try and open it again on another XP

Yes, it sounds good. I can try tomorrow. Thank you for your advice ! On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Logan Chien <tzuhsiang.chien at gmail.com>wrote: > I think the better solution should be: > > > LLVMContext& C = is->getContext(); > Value *values[] = { > ConstantInt::getSigned(Type::getInt64Ty(C), *scsr*), > MDString::get(C, *"path"*) > };

I think the better solution should be: LLVMContext& C = is->getContext(); Value *values[] = { ConstantInt::getSigned(Type::getInt64Ty(C), *scsr*), MDString::get(C, *"path"*) }; lnstr.setMetadata(*"your_analysis_name"*, MDNode::get(C, values)); So that you can take advantage of the type system of LLVM bitcode, and don't have to cast the integers from/to strings

Hi Chandrakala, Logan, Can you confirm that the attached patch fixes the overflow problem? Koen, can you confirm the fix makes sense? Cheers, Jean-Marc On 11/27/2017 12:10 PM, Logan Stromberg wrote: > Sorry, long holiday weekend in America. > I can say with pretty high certainty that there is an overflow occurring > and it is flipping smooth_coef_Q16 to be negative when it probably

Hi, Can anyone let me know if this is a bug? Thank you, Chandrakala ----- Original Message ----- From: "Logan Stromberg" <loganstromberg at gmail.com> To: "Chandrakala Madhira" <chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com> Cc: opus at xiph.org Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 12:12:39 PM Subject: Re: [opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD

The problem is that I want to pass only srsr which is an int. "marked" was just an example :) Thanks you! On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Logan Chien <tzuhsiang.chien at gmail.com>wrote: > I'm not familiar with this, but maybe you can try: > > StringRef tst = ("marked" + Twine(srsr)).str(); > > It seems that you can't use integer as meta data

That change seems to fix things here. Thanks! -Gordon From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of JF Bastien Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:53 PM To: Logan Chien Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Broken PLT on ARM from R183966 I'm not very familiar with relocations but your fix looks the same as

On 2019-06-13 3:43 a.m., Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Passing the actual typed structure leads to more understandable code > vs the actual references. Ha, ok, I originally suggested this to Dan when he introduced the callback[1]. Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang at deltatee.com> Logan [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/8f0cae82-130f-8a64-cfbd-fda5fd76bb79 at deltatee.com/T/#u

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Folks, I've uploaded the *final* 3.0.23c roll up patch to http://samba.org/~jerry/patches/patch-3.0.23b-3.0.23c-gwc-2.diffs.gz. I've already cut the 3.0.23c tarballs so unless there is a major problem, this will be the final change set. Please report *any* bugs that you find. I'd like to wrap this one up and do the public 3.0.23c

I'm not very familiar with relocations but your fix looks the same as ARMTargetLowering::LowerCall, so from that perspective it lgtm (but I may be missing something). On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Logan Chien <tzuhsiang.chien at gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Anton and JF, > > Thanks for your review. After reading the source code more carefully, I > have come up with a

On 15 March 2014 17:06, Logan Chien <tzuhsiang.chien at gmail.com> wrote: > I would like to know what do you mean by "commoning them up"? Hi Logan, That'd be reducing ARM directives in favour of CFI, but as I said (and you too), GNU compatibility will probably be an issue for a very long time. > For the space issue, I personally don't think this is a big issue.

Logan, How would I dump the object file generated by the JIT compiler pipeline? Could you point me to an example of how something like that is done? I’m used to working with the JIT machinery in memory but not writing object files out to disk. I’m have code to generate object files for AOT compilation - is it done the same way? Best, .Chris. On Apr 12, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Logan Chien

Hi Logan, FYI, I spoke with Saleem on IRC, and we agree that this should be pre-v4. We don't expect any issues to come, so we should worry about them if there are any. cheers, --renato On 27 May 2015 at 17:26, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Logan, > > There are some tests in the MC/ARM directory that seem suspicious: > directive-arch-armv{2,3}.s >

Hi Anton and JF, Thanks for your review. After reading the source code more carefully, I have come up with a different way fix this issue. We can simply resolve this issue by adding ARMII::MO_PLT flags with MachineInstrBuilder in FastISel pass (without failing back to DAG lowering). The new patch is attached, and the test case is not changed. Sorry for your inconvenience. Please have a

Hi Logan/All, I have added a check for the sg_dma_len == 0 : """ } __sgt_iter(struct scatterlist *sgl, bool dma) { struct sgt_iter s = { .sgp = sgl }; + if (sgl && sg_dma_len(sgl) == 0) + s.sgp = NULL; if (s.sgp) { ..... """ at location [1]. but it doens't fix the problem. You're right though, this

Hi Logan, There are some tests in the MC/ARM directory that seem suspicious: directive-arch-armv{2,3}.s They expect "armv2" and "armv3" to have an "ARM v4" tag, which is wrong. I know GCC does that, but I don't think we should. Given that this will probably never happen in LLVM, I think we can safely take the correct approach and ignore GCC. Any other reason

Hello, I would like to post the below position on your site. Thanks, Quantitative Analyst/Quantitative Developer MSIM Global Risk & Analysis, Quantitative Research & Model Review group Morgan Stanley Investment Management (MSIM), together with its investment advisory affiliates, has more than 680 investment professionals around the world and approximately $279 billion in assets under

This is the only thing that I’ve found that works in terms of getting the exception to propagate out of the JITted function - change the “call” to an “invoke” and hook in the do-nothing landing-pad. https://gist.github.com/drmeister/7a35046f666826206973 Compare line 646 of the file above to the one that I just posted. > https://gist.github.com/drmeister/b97dec956c6ee9ffeb75 The first one

Logan, I need to make a correction of the post that preceded this one! I was wrong when I said this: > When I load the bitcode file for this module and then dump it just before it is JITted, the “uwtable” attribute has disappeared - is this prune-eh doing its work even though it’s not listed above in the list of function pass managers? The “uwtable” attribute does not disappear! I had