similar to: [PATCH] Fix parsing of boot flag in do_part_get_bootable()

--- daemon/parted.c | 56 ----------------------------------------------- daemon/parted.ml | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ daemon/parted.mli | 8 +++++++ generator/actions_core.ml | 1 + 4 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/parted.c b/daemon/parted.c index a1e5c81cf..125aec60b 100644 --- a/daemon/parted.c +++

We don't support RHEL 5 upstream (see the 'oldlinux' branch for a version that works with RHEL 5). Therefore remove a bunch of hacks that were only needed on RHEL 5. --- appliance/packagelist.in | 2 - common-rules.mk | 8 - daemon/parted.c | 455 +++++++++++----------------------------- daemon/swap.c | 18 +-

Should I be concerned? [root@fs1 ~]# cobbler import --name=F18 --path=rsync://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/18/Fedora/x86_64/os --arch=x86_64 task started: 2013-01-18_062009_import task started (id=Media import, time=Fri Jan 18 06:20:09 2013) Found a redhat compatible signature: Packages adding distros creating new distro: F18-x86_64 creating new profile: F18-x86_64 associating repos

Hi llvm-dev We believe we have completed enough of the agreed pre-upstreaming changes to start talking about merging F18 into LLVM. The live status is tracked at [1]. There are a few details that we have not managed to hammer out and we propose to tackle inside the LLVM monorepo. I have put a summary of these at the bottom of this mail. Does anyone have any objections to flang being merged into

Hi Mehdi, I can't replicate those failures at my end, could you let me know what OS, compiler and CMake flags you're using so I can try and reproduce? Thanks! David Truby ________________________________ From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Sent: 07 April 2020 06:44 To: Richard Barton

Attached is the log. I'm building with: clang version 10.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/ 3a6da1122b990386edeba0987d0d1fdc9c8dc53d) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix On some Ubuntu-like distribution. I also ran with ASAN once and it found a bunch of leaks in bin/tco. Best, -- Mehdi On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:36 AM Richard Barton <Richard.Barton at

Hi Eric, Apologies, I failed to disambiguate clearly, because there are multiple projects named flang. I was referring to the "new" flang, whose repository is currently found at https://github.com/flang-compiler/f18. It will land in the monorepo under a directory called "/flang/". f18 has been approved to join, for reference see "[llvm-dev] f18 is accepted as part of

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 5:46 PM Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM Stephen Scalpone via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> * The current f18 code will be committed to the new LLVM subproject. The >> f18 code is a set of libraries that implements the Fortran compiler. >>

Hello, This is regarding recent/ongoing discussions about F18 being merged in LLVM. I was going through these threads, and I found few important points which were possibly left unanswered (or I might have missed few threads). URL: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/flang-dev/2019-December/000120.html Point: Is (3) AST -> FIR -> MLIR LLVM-IR -> LLVM-IR) in a shape where we can

A while ago someone on IRC had a directory with no entries but with a non-zero i_size. rmdir fails because i_size isn''t zero but there are no items left to remove and decrease i_size. At the time casual code inspection implied that this would be possible in unlucky error cases. I finally got around to really reading up and reproducing it. diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:45 PM Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM Stephen Scalpone via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> * The current f18 code will be committed to the new LLVM subproject. The >> f18 code is a set of libraries that implements the Fortran compiler. >>

Signed-off-by: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@cn.fujitsu.com> --- daemon/parted.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/parted.c b/daemon/parted.c index a7bcb99..64a7d3c 100644 --- a/daemon/parted.c +++ b/daemon/parted.c @@ -33,6 +33,12 @@ GUESTFSD_EXT_CMD(str_parted, parted); GUESTFSD_EXT_CMD(str_sfdisk, sfdisk);

Hi Eric, Renato Thanks again for the engagement and challenge on this, it is really useful feedback to know what we need to do to get F18 into the project in a way that everyone is happy with. I have tried to give timelines on the points addressed below where I can today. Clearly we need to do some work on points 8-11, but are the above plans/answers to points 1-7 sufficient at this stage and

Can you elaborate on this? - to move the std::string/string_view/StringRef changes to pre-merge unless you're going to have someone dedicated to handling them post-merge (rather than "time permits"). The C vs C++ ism here is fairly strong and I'd like to get the C-style string handling out fairly quickly. I understood this item to be looking into replacing uses of std::string

Hi Eric, Old flang certainly uses C-style strings but f18 uses std::string with few exceptions. Most of the instances in f18 of “char *” aren’t really strings in the C sense – they’re not null terminated and are really just pointers into raw or cooked source files/streams. I can’t think of an instance where the compiler dynamically allocates an array of characters and uses it as a C string. -

"Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > And then there is also the argument for reusing Clang tooling, > which David Greene keeps making, though that idea does not seem to > get a lot of interest. > > > I disagree. There's been a lot of interest in modeling Flang's tooling > after Clang's

Hi llvm-dev It's been a few weeks since I last gave an update on F18 and our progress on readying it for inclusion into the monorepo. Last time we discussed this the community challenged us to make the F18 source code look more like an LLVM project and to come up with a plan and schedule for completing this work (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-January/137989.html) The full

Oops! I blame Microsoft. I use Hotmail and am very, very unhappy that MS bought them out which leaves me stuck with Outlook, which sucks. I've always just hit reply in the past and it's worked. Now I'm going to have to be careful to make sure my replies go where I expect them. Thank you very much for the information. I was really hoping to consolidate systems but that apparently

I think it would probably make the most sense to land this as a single merge-commit (from the 2700-commit rewritten history you've created) onto llvm-project master, rather than as 2700 individual toplevel commits to master. (Which means: disable the merge-commit prohibition in the github configuration, temporarily, push this commit, and then enable it again). On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:10 PM

Could anyone please list out the steps required to run the command $virsh qemu-agent-command Steps that I followed: 1. Clone the latest source code of libvirt 2. Create a vm of f18 (source:liveCD) 3. Edit f18 domain xml and add this: <channel type='unix'> <source mode='bind' path='/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/f16x86_64.agent'/> <target type='virtio'