similar to: llvm building issue

It's could be the ill-formed td file causing llvm-tablegen stuck there. You might have to double-check your td file. HTH, chenwj 2018-01-31 18:53 GMT+08:00 Ons Boutiti via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >: > dear all, > i'am working on developing new llvm compiler backend for dlx > processor. I finished writing the code and i'm trying to build it. > After

Hi, generally, please don't send screenshots: Copy&paste of your terminal output is much easier and better to search for in the future... Without the source code, I think nobody will be able to help. You might be trying $ make VERBOSE=1 to see what's actually happening underneath. Maybe one command is returning a non-zero exit status? Cheers, Jonas Am 2018-01-31 11:53, schrieb

Hi, While upgrading samba 4.4 to samba 4.10 I have detected taht with newer versions if you use bind-dlx config it seem that is not working by a permissions problems on new folder bind-dns on samba folder, If you change to 777 to this folder and named.conf then works, but is not secure... I have checked samba wiki and no information about this Any suggestion what could be the right

So I thought I'd try to use the documentation on llvm backends to try to create a DLX backend. I think I've got most of the stuff for the .td files done but I've got some problems. * Do I need to represent the PC in my XXXRegisterInfo.td file; the branch instruction effects it but you can directly access it ... I'm thinking not. * In my Instruction subclasses (in

Hello, Past few days I have been working on a DLX Target for LLVM using the Mips Target as a base. Coming along quite well, currently ran into two problems with my sample/test program. The main issue I am having is with respect to the following (Note: I have already changed ADDui from ADDiu) We have this def ADDui : ArithI<0x09, "addui", add, simm16, immSExt16>; However

Appreciate any suggestions regarding how to fit an unbalanced panel data to a Tobit model using R functions. I am trying to analyze how real estate capital expenditures (CapEx) are affected by market conditions using a panel Tobit model. The CapEx is either positive or 0, so it is censored. The data are unbalanced panel, including the CapEx of about 5000 properties over about 40 quarters, with the

Björn Pettersson A <bjorn.a.pettersson at ericsson.com> writes: > In the new monorepo UC1 may or may not be a parent to UL1. > We could actually have something like this: > > UL4->UC2->UL3->UL2->UL1->UL0->UC1 > > Our DL1 commit should preferably have UL1 as parent after > conversion > > UL4->UC2->UL3->UL2->UL1->UL0->UC1 >

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:36 PM David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2018-02-03 at 00:23 +0000, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > > > Two aspects to this... > > > > One, we're somewhat reluctant to guarantee an ABI here. At least I > > am. While we don't *expect* rampant divergence here, I don't want > > this to become

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:03 PM David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 10:10 +0100, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > I saw the retpoline mitigation landed in r323155. Are we ready to > > merge this to 6.0, or are there any open issues that we're waiting > > for? Also, were there any followups I should know about? Also,

Hi all, I saw the retpoline mitigation landed in r323155. Are we ready to merge this to 6.0, or are there any open issues that we're waiting for? Also, were there any followups I should know about? Also, release notes please :-) Thanks, Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Sat, 2018-02-03 at 00:51 +0000, Chandler Carruth wrote: > While you *can* export your external thunk, that's a choice of the > code defining the thunk. The driving force in the kernel is to be able to runtime patch the thunks away, when running on a CPU or in a mode that doesn't need them. We really want to have central implementations and have everything use them. > >

On Sat, 2018-02-03 at 00:23 +0000, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > Two aspects to this... > > One, we're somewhat reluctant to guarantee an ABI here. At least I > am. While we don't *expect* rampant divergence here, I don't want > this to become something we cannot change if there are good reasons > to do so. We've already changed the thunks once based on

On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 10:10 +0100, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev wrote: > > I saw the retpoline mitigation landed in r323155. Are we ready to > merge this to 6.0, or are there any open issues that we're waiting > for? Also, were there any followups I should know about? Also, > release notes please :-) Eep, please can we keep the command line option for clang and the thunk ABI

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:23 PM Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:03 PM David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> > wrote: > >> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 10:10 +0100, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev wrote: >> > >> > I saw the retpoline mitigation landed in r323155. Are we ready to >> > merge this to 6.0, or are

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:59 PM David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2018-02-03 at 00:51 +0000, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > While you *can* export your external thunk, that's a choice of the code > defining the thunk. > > > The driving force in the kernel is to be able to runtime patch the thunks > away, when running on a CPU or in a

Hi, It's time to prepare the 3.12.6 release, which falls on the 10th of each month, and hence would be 12-02-2018 this time around. This mail is to call out the following, 1) Are there any pending *blocker* bugs that need to be tracked for 3.12.6? If so mark them against the provided tracker [1] as blockers for the release, or at the very least post them as a response to this mail 2)

On 02/02/2018 04:27 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:23 PM Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com <mailto:chandlerc at google.com>> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:03 PM David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org <mailto:dwmw2 at infradead.org>> wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 10:10 +0100, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev

Hello, would it be possible to update config.sub and config.guess to the latest versions (or at least version from automake-1.13.1) in order to support new architectures based on the ARM 64 bit CPU? Patch: http://plautrba.fedorapeople.org/openssh/openssh-latest-config.sub-config.guess.patch Related Fedora bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=926284 Thanks, Petr

Hello, I am trying to setup a file server using the SFTP protocol with OpenSSH. I am in trouble because sshd refuses to chroot to a directory that is writable by users other than the owner. I guess that this is to prevent someone else from creating a .ssh/authorized_keys file and impersonate the user. But we have configured an alternative AuthorizedKeysFile. I also understand that a chroot user

Hello Chris, On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 17:00:03 +0000 Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote: > You can to use efibootmgr for this. NVRAM boot entry is what changed, not > the contents of the EFI System partition. > > efibootmgr -v > > Will list all entries and Boot Order. You need to use --bootorder to make > sure the CentOS entry is first. Interesting.. thanks