similar to: [LLVMdev] Enforcing execution order of passes

Hi, Is rails supposed to support referential integrity? That is rails either support to be able to ensure that when a new contact is created this can only happen if a valid suberb is associated with it, and which mechanisms of the below are supposed to do this? (a) using DB foreign key constraints information as a basis? (b) using the "has_one" line in the model file to enfore? If

> > That is a reasonable way to do it. Another reasonable way would be > > to lower them in the instruction selector itself though the use of > > custom expanders. In practice, using instructions with "call foo" > in > them instead of lowering to calls may be simpler. > > Hmm, let me see. Just to check that I understand your proposal > correctly:

Hi, >> My target supports only f64 at the moment. >> Question: How can I tell LLVM that float is the same as double on my >> target? May be by assigning the same register class to both MVT::f32 ?> and MVT::f64? >Just don't assign a register class for the f32 type. This is what the >X86 backend does when it is in "floating point stack mode". This will

On Jan 28, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Devang Patel wrote: >> >> So what does this assert mean, exactly? > > In simple word, pass manager is unable to fulfill your request. Can you explain this one in complex words then? :^) I've encountered the same problem. --Vikram -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I'm now ready to implement the FP support for my embedded target. My target supports only f64 at the moment. Question: How can I tell LLVM that float is the same as double on my target? May be by assigning the same register class to both MVT::f32 and MVT::f64? But FP is supported only in the emulated mode, because the target does not have any hardware support for FP. Therefore each FP

Hi, I was looking into the new Authentication Policy feature: https://wiki2.dovecot.org/Authentication/Policy I had kinda hoped that I would be able to enfore this in a proxy running in front of several backends. This proxy does not authenticate. It use "nopassword". But I realize that the "succes" reported in the final authpolicy req. (command=report) is not what is

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Roman Levenstein wrote: > I'm now ready to implement the FP support for my embedded target. cool. > My target supports only f64 at the moment. > Question: How can I tell LLVM that float is the same as double on my > target? May be by assigning the same register class to both MVT::f32 > and MVT::f64? Just don't assign a register class for the f32 type.

Dear All, I had a similar error back in December; there are a number of email exchanges about it on llvmdev in December 2007; a search through the archives might shed some light on my PassManager does this. If you're updating a pass from pre-LLVM 2.0 to post-LLVM 2.0, you should be aware that the pass manager in LLVM 2.x is used only for scheduling dependent *analysis* passes. If you

I think I inadvertently hijacked another thread when I posted this a couple days ago, so I''ll try again. :) For those who have developed apps that have different levels of account quotas in regards to total file upload space, how are you managing it? Are you keeping track of the total uploaded bytes in an Account model or are you using OS quota mechanisms? Any suggestions would be

Hello, I''m currently using the gem ''nested_set'' for comment threading. What I want to do is prevent the comment level from going more than 2 levels deep. What I tired doing was something like this: class Comment < ActiveRecord::Base .... before_save :ensure_max_nestedset_level private # We don''t want comments to go

This is a pretty uncontroversial patch which just allows the selinux=? and enforcing=? flags on the kernel command line to be controlled. Currently libguestfs unconditionally passes selinux=0. By default this patch does the same thing, but allows programs to enable SELinux in the kernel and/or set it to enforcing mode. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat

Do not attempt to relabel a guest in case its SELinux enforcing mode is not "enforcing", as it is either pointless, or it may fail because of an invalid policy configured. --- mlcustomize/SELinux_relabel.ml | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/mlcustomize/SELinux_relabel.ml b/mlcustomize/SELinux_relabel.ml index 647aeda..db00e59

On Thursday, 24 September 2020 13:53:57 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Considering that /tmp is a general location for temporary files, it's > > common that files may end with a tmp_t-alike label when moved back to > > the destination place (e.g. after a rename()). That is not the only > > situation like this that I saw in the past. > > > > In

On Wednesday, 23 September 2020 17:57:47 CET Pino Toscano wrote: > Continuation/rework of: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2020-May/msg00020.html > > This is my approach, as I explained here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828952#c4 > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2020-May/msg00035.html > IOW: do not attempt to relabel if the guest is

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 16:34, Artem Dergachev via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > If you're doing merge commits, you might lose linear history, but you > obtain another fancy invariant: every piece of work - i.e., every patch, > every merge conflict resolution - appears in the repository exactly > once, under a unique identifier, and the non-linear source

Hello, how could it be achieved to run e.g. shutdown -h now from a CGI script on a system where SELinux is set to ENFORCING? Thanks Walter

> On Aug 20, 2016, at 15:00, Walter H. <Walter.H at mathemainzel.info> wrote: > > Hello, > > how could it be achieved to run > e.g. > shutdown -h now > from a CGI script on a system where SELinux is set to ENFORCING? Short answer: don't. You could probably create a custom selinux policy that allowed it but you'd be opening your system up to more security

I noticed a similar/same discussion back on Aug 14th titled force ciphers order for clients. However from that thread I can't find quite what I'm after. From my testing of dovecot 2.1.6, by default it appears to honor the clients cipher list order for SSL/TLS connections. I can't find any documentation on dovecot providing a setting like Apache HTTPDs to either honor the client

On 16 Mar 2017, at 0.14, Adi Pircalabu <adi at ddns.com.au> wrote: > > I thought this might be the case. Is there any solution to enforce this on the proxy? If not, will a feature request be considered anytime soon? I see the proxies as the first line of defense against IMAP "abuse" and I think it's consistent having the same configurable option available on both

Adi Pircalabu writes: > For us it is, we're periodically getting hammered by iOS devices that > try to open 300+ simultaneous IMAP connections for a single user from > the same IP, while the average hovers usually below 50 for the busier > mailboxes with many folders. Oh yeah, I've seen this. I think this happens when someone does a global pattern search, which causes the