similar to: Routes are not added automatically

Hi Folks I recently got back the message below form a company I suggested supporting WINE with their software. Is there any answer - or is it, as they suggest, a lost cause? The error I get from WINE is: RTG Bills (title) ADO error 1AD ActiveX component can't create object [OK](button) Is there anyway to have ActiveX & ADO work with WINE? Regards, Morgan. > No, RTG Bills won't

Hi, I am triying to configure a VPN, my configuration files are: ****************** TINC.CONF: Name = nova # The internet host to connect with. ConnectTo = nova2 Device = /dev/net/tun #Device name.. Leave as is. Interface = vpn #Virtual Interface name. Give any suitable name. #Mode = "router" #use Router mode

This is of course not homework. I am trying to understand how fast math optimizations work in llvm. When I compared IR for both the programs, the only thing I have noticed is that fdiv and fmul are replaced with fdiv fast and fmul fast. Not sure what happens in fdiv fast and fmul fast. I feel that its because d/max is really small number and fast-math does not care about small numbers and consider

When you have fairly large data, _do not use the formula interface_, as a couple of copies of the data would be made. Try simply: Myforest.rf <- randomForest(Mydata[, -46], Mydata[,46], ntrees=100, mtry=7) [Note that you don't need to set proximity (not proximities) or importance to FALSE, as that's the default already.] You might also want to use

We had this discussion a few months ago and it petered out, and it’s recently been revived in the context of upgrading the CMake version specifically for libc++ (at which point people suggested upgrading the CMake version used by all of LLVM), so let’s try to move this forward. Our current required minimum version is CMake 3.4.3, which was released on January 25th 2016. It’s interesting to note

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:48 PM Nikita Popov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 9:07 PM Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> We had this discussion a few months ago and it petered out, and it’s recently been revived in the context of upgrading the CMake version specifically for libc++ (at which

On 13/06/2019 16:14, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On 13 June 2019 at 16:05, lejeczek via R-devel wrote: > | I'd like to ask, and I believe this place here should be best as who can > | know better, if building R with different compilers and opt flags is > | something worth investing time into? > | > | Or maybe this a subject that somebody has already investigated. If yes >

Assuming this is a one-time version bump, this seems reasonable to me. Perhaps this goes without saying, but the warning for point 1 should only happen if you don’t have CMake >= 3.13.4 installed. It sounded to me from your original message that you have an urgent need to upgrade to 3.8. Were you planning on going ahead with that right away? From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at

I’m in favor of all this. Thanks for volunteering! I’m happy to help out in whatever way. Some things it might be worth figuring out for future upgrades: * If we want to limit ourselves to CMake versions supported by LTS releases of distros, which distros should we consider, and how far back should we go (i.e. is it just the latest LTS or the last two LTS versions)? * For platforms like Ubuntu

Here's the failing tests for rc2 on SLES11.3 (glibc 2.11, libstdc++4.7). I've done some amount of triaging what some critical elements of the failures are. Unabridged log is attached. Failing Tests (94): LLVM-Unit :: ExecutionEngine/Orc/OrcJITTests/DummyRPC.TestAsyncIntInt LLVM-Unit :: ExecutionEngine/Orc/OrcJITTests/DummyRPC.TestAsyncVoidBool LLVM-Unit ::

Ubuntu 20.04 LTS will be released soon, and I believe it’ll have CMake 3.16.3, so that increases the LTS lower bound significantly. I strongly disagree with the sentiment that the build system already works so there’s no urgent need to improve it. I believe we should treat the build system like code, and the same ideas around refactoring apply. Our build system is a huge thorny mess; there’s tons

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13587 Bug ID: 13587 Summary: Add a --dry-run way to show destination for each item Product: rsync Version: 3.1.2 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core Assignee: wayned at samba.org

> On Apr 2, 2020, at 10:19, Louis Dionne via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Okay, so we've had some discussion on this thread, and although some people (including me) would like a more aggressive policy, I believe the following will not get any objection (based on the thread). On April 23rd 2020, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS will ship with CMake 3.16.x. This will make the

'Supported' means that it comes from the packages available from the distribution that can be seen via this page. https://packages.ubuntu.com/ These packages have been processed by the Ubuntu community to obtain a reliability expectation that would not apply, for example, to a PPA. The difference between installing or building Clang and LLVM from original sources as against

Every additional dependency that we force the user to manually install (either by building from source, or adding some new PPA to their ubuntu system), raises the barrier to entry that much higher. Just because we may require the user to manually install some newer compiler on their system doesn’t mean that we should also require them to install some newer CMake than what’s on their system.

> You're saying "doesn’t mean that we should" while I've been saying in this situation that "we can", there is quite a difference here I believe. Technically “we can” do anything we want. We can always require that the project be built with the current release candidate of CMake. That doesn’t mean that we should. From: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>

I think it does make a difference how many things we ask new developers to do to get up and running - because we've asked them to do one thing doesn't mean it's low-cost to ask them to do another thing. On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:20 AM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:16 AM Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at

Il 26-11-2015 15:15 John R. Dennison ha scritto: > You are strongly encouraged to update that CentOS system. Current is > 6.7 (released some 3 months ago) and dovecot-2.0.9-19. Ouch! I copied outdated information from my old post. My current system _is_ CentOS 6.7 with dovecot dovecot-2.0.9-19.el6_7.2.x86_64 Sorry for the confusion. Still, the problems remain > If you find you need a

Hi Mark Did you or anyone else ever find a satisfactory solution to this? Are there any phones which provide voice through the serial connection? What about the nokia card phone - does it have open source drivers? Cheers Rob On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 10:31:53AM -0500, Mark Spencer wrote: > Does anyone (maybe in Europe) know how I could build a GSM compatible > channel for Asterisk, so

Hi Guys, I have a few questions about 3.6 directory environments, which we're looking to adopt. Currently the most pressing surrounds the integration of r10k and hiera… I believe I want to store hieradata inside the r10k repos, so that each r10k repo (I'm planning on using these to segregate different internal product stacks so that product owners can put sensitive data in their own