similar to: [LLVMdev] Cross compilation question

Hi Rafal, LLVM's bitcode is not target independent in the manner you're hoping for. You can't take bitcode generated for x86 and use it on ARM, for example, or bitcode generated for Linux and use it on Darwin. -Jim On Jun 18, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Rafal Rusin wrote: > Hello, > > I wonder if it's possible to cross compile regular linux packages > (autotools based) into

The ability to archive object files generated with -flto under LLVM.org clang 3.9.0 or 4.0svn trunk is broken against the currently shipping Xcode releases including the upcoming Xcode 8.1 GM. https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30791 $ clang-3.9 -flto -O1 -c *.i $ ar cr libtar.a paxerror.o paxexit-status.o paxnames.o rtapelib.o stdopen.o wordsplit.o xattr-at.o error: Unknown attribute kind

> On Oct 26, 2016, at 8:06 AM, Jack Howarth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The ability to archive object files generated with -flto under > LLVM.org clang 3.9.0 or 4.0svn trunk is broken against the currently > shipping Xcode releases including the upcoming Xcode 8.1 GM. > > https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30791 > > $ clang-3.9

I decided to start using ext3. My kernel 2.4.15p9. I downloaded and build util-linux-2.11m and e2fsprogs 1.25. I compiled ext3 in the kernel. I started converting my filesystems and thing went ok for the first few. I then started getting the following on each additional filesystem. [root@joker /root]# tune2fs -j /dev/hdc4 tune2fs 1.25 (20-Sep-2001) Creating journal inode: done This filesystem

I've been trying to build a bundle with the R-devel snapshot from yesterday. (Yes I know it is unstable and just tell me if I shouldn't be trying to do this yet.) It is failing with the message tar : /dev/rmt/0 : Permission denied It happens after "removing junk files" and just after the message "building dse_2000.9-1.tar.gz" It looks to be coming from the line in

I began with Samba 1.9.18.p10. on SunOs 5.6. I try backup PC(Windows95) with this: smbclient \\\\pcbig\\test .. .. smb:\> recurse smb:\> directory recursion is now on smb:\> tar c /dev/rmt/0 .... Until it is OK. But restore has error: smb:\> tar x /dev/rmt/0 smb:\> restore tar file \test1.txt of size 70 bytes smb:\> Updating creation date on \testfolder1\ smb:\> ERRDOS - 50

> On Jul 22, 2016, at 7:28 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > >> On Jul 22, 2016, at 12:31 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> On 22 Jul 2016, at 07:14, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> Just tried to set it up there:

Hi All, I am at my wits end. I have a LDAP server setup on a machine (the names are changed to protect the innocent) example.mydomain.com running CentOS 5.4 and LDAP version 2.3.43-3. If I issue a ldapsearch command while logged onto the LDAP server host I get a valid response back. For example: > ldapsearch -x -LLL -H ldaps://example.mydomain.com:636 "(uid=joker)" \ > sn uid dn:

Seems like everything is operational now! Let me know if anything seems off. In particular the email configuration took me a while to figure out, it isn't clear to me how Phab was possibly receiving email before? I upgraded the VM without changing the Phabricator version, I'll likely look into upgrading Phabricator itself next weekend. -- Mehdi On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 9:02 PM Mehdi

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 10:58 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: > Since you are going to rewrite the mlir history anyway, you can > probably delete accidentally checked in large files if any. > Good point, I checked and this is the largest file in the history of the repo as far as I can tell:

For everyone else's reference, John just gave me a call and issued a challenge to put my money where my (big) mouth is. So i'll be doing some work on the documentation in the next little while, specifically to do with adding Samba member servers to an AD infrastructure. If you have troubleshooting tips you picked up, or suggestions of things that need to be included, please let me know.

That's a good point, we should definitely be respectful of the build bot owners time, that said I think it's the coordination that takes the time rather than the change :) On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:48 AM Keane, Erich via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > My understanding is the biggest concern about the name change is the > ‘cost’ associated with needing to

Are we agreeing on this is what we should do? If so, I will prepare a patch. Steven > On Feb 8, 2018, at 11:07 AM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2018-02-08 10:44 GMT-08:00 Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com <mailto:stevenwu at apple.com>>: > > >> On Feb 8, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com

The one that doesn’t require global analysis is commit in r324757. The global analysis will require adding a field into GlobalSummary. Let me do some research. The implementation should not be hard but I don’t want to break bitcode compatibility if that applies to the summary. Steven > On Feb 9, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > SGTM. I would

Can someone tell me what has to happen to get the aliases working in samba? Below is an earlier posting. Thanks!! Does anyone have aliases working correctly? Suppose I am moving the samba to one server to another, say VIPER > to JOKER. > > In smb.conf I change the 'netbios name = VIPER' to JOKER > and I also want the old name to be seen as well. To do this > I create

I wonder whether we could change the frontend to always give hidden visibility to globals which are linkonce_odr unnamed_addr. That way, the mechanism would just work in ELF as well and would not require LTO. Peter On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Steven Wu via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The one that doesn’t require global analysis is commit in r324757. > >

I mean, we could change it twice? There are about a hundred scripts out there for doing it. -eric On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:40 AM Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> wrote: > Do we have any ability to reach out to github (at least?) to see what they > are going to do? I’d very much like to avoid being the odd-project-out > here. > > > > > > > >

To be clear: I’m concerned about the amount of our infrastructure (as well as downstream infrastructure, this would be actually pretty painful for both of my downstreams) that the community would have break/need fixing as a part of that. So I want this to happen ONCE. I think it is well motivated now, but switching from ‘default’ to ‘main’ when that becomes the ‘standard’ one seems way less

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2018-02-13 17:46 GMT-08:00 Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>: > >> >> >> 2018-02-13 13:29 GMT-08:00 Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com>: >> >>> Hi Mehdi, >>> >>> >>> On Feb 13, 2018, at 12:34 PM, Mehdi AMINI

SGTM. I would do as 2 separate patches, the local per-module case, then the case that requires linker/global analysis. Thanks, Teresa On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steven Wu via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Are we agreeing on this is what we should do? If so, I will prepare a > patch. > > Steven > > > On Feb 8, 2018, at 11:07 AM, Mehdi AMINI