similar to: [Bug 2535] New: Undefined behaviour of *printf in DISPLAY handling code

Dear All It is a little hard to give a good small example of my question,so I will show the full data on the bottom and the attachment.Maybe some one could tell me an appropriate way to show it.I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Q:How to generate a 53*53 diagonal matrix by my data Some problems confused me are that: 1.Since it is a diagonal matrix,I have tried to transform col1 and col2 to

This change allows use of untrusted X11 forwarding (which is more secure) without requiring users to choose a finite timeout after which to refuse new connections. This matches the semantics of the X11 security extension itself, which also treat a validity timeout of 0 on an authentication cookie as indefinite. Signed-off-by: Trixie Able <table at inventati.org> --- clientloop.c | 12

I have just tarred up a snapshot and uploaded it to: http://www.mindrot.org/misc/openssh/openssh-SNAP-20000823.tar.gz The snapshot incorporates the last month's fixes and enhancements from the openssh-unix-dev mailing list and from the OpenBSD developers. In particular: - ssh-agent and ssh-add now handle DSA keys. NB. this does not interop with ssh.com's ssh-agent. (Markus Friedl)

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2451 Bug ID: 2451 Summary: Bugs intended to be fixed in 7.2 Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: trivial Priority: P5 Component: Miscellaneous Assignee: unassigned-bugs at

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1082 Summary: xauth list invocation has bogus "." argument Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 4.2p1 Platform: ix86 OS/Version: NetBSD Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ssh AssignedTo: bitbucket at mindrot.org

Don't know how much control you have over the remote situation but some UPSes have their own logs which should show this. Also, some UPSes have add-in boards providing network connections with various services. If these outages are costing enough money and the remote UPS doesn't have the add-in card but does have the capability of adding one you might be able to justify the expense.

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1878 Jakub Jelen <jjelen at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |REOPENED CC| |jjelen at redhat.com Resolution|FIXED

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2619 Bug ID: 2619 Summary: infinite loop, 100% cpu use in ssh if ^Z is pressed at password prompt Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 7.3p1 Hardware: Other OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component:

Hello, list a have a problem i can start asterisk, i get the fowlling error: [chan_capi.so] => (Common ISDN API for Asterisk) == Parsing '/etc/asterisk/capi.conf': Found Feb 11 13:50:36 NOTICE[2535]: chan_capi.c:2636 load_module: CAPI not installed! Feb 11 13:50:36 WARNING[2535]: loader.c:345 ast_load_resource: chan_capi.so: load_module failed, returning -1 Feb 11 13:50:36

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2455 Bug ID: 2455 Summary: Regression tests tweaks: keyscan and hostkey_rotation Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 7.1p1 Hardware: Other OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: Regression tests Assignee:

> On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Nicholas Chapman <admin at indigorenderer.com> wrote: > > I propose changing the llvm.sqrt() LLVM instrinsic to be well defined on all inputs, and be defined to return NaN on negative inputs. I strongly disagree with this proposal. The purpose of this general purpose intrinsic is to expose sqrt functionality present on many of the architectures LLVM

> I strongly disagree with this proposal. The purpose of this general > purpose intrinsic is to expose sqrt functionality present on many of > the architectures LLVM supports. If we defined its edge cases, we > won't be able to map it to target functionality freely on targets whose > edge cases don't match that definition. I agree the targets should be the primary focus,

Done, I added as much info as I could that describes how I got that behavior. > On Mar 27, 2016, at 7:40 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Lorenzo, > > Thanks for the report. Can you create a new entry in Bugzilla? With > steps to reproduce (command line options, etc) and how you're getting > the value of the triple (debugger?). >

lvqcl wrote: > FLAC__fixed_restore_signal() is a part of flac *de*coder, so it makes > sense to test it on different architectures (ARM, MIPS?). But I have no > idea how to make it. Yes, but the code in FLAC__fixed_restore_signal() is (ignoring identifier name differences) identical to FLAC__fixed_compute_residual(), Maybe I should just publish my micro benchmarking code as part of the

Martijn van Beurden wrote: > I just checked on my Raspberry pi (armv6-hf, GCC 4.6) and it > looks like decoding is actually faster with these changes. I > benchmarked 1b8af6b against f7c52c8, the results are attached. Interesting results, thanks. (OTOH, GCC 4.6 was released ~4.5 years ago, so it would be also interesting to test it on newer compilers - GCC 4.9.x or 5.x, or some new

lvqcl wrote: > Martijn van Beurden wrote: > > > I just checked on my Raspberry pi (armv6-hf, GCC 4.6) and it > > looks like decoding is actually faster with these changes. I > > benchmarked 1b8af6b against f7c52c8, the results are attached. > > Interesting results, thanks. > > > (OTOH, GCC 4.6 was released ~4.5 years ago, so it would be also >

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2398 Bug ID: 2398 Summary: AuthenticationMethods doesn't have default value (inconsistency) and it accept empty value Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 6.8p1 Hardware: Other OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2400 Bug ID: 2400 Summary: StrictHostKeyChecking=no behaviour on HOST_CHANGED is excessively insecure Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 6.8p1 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component:

On 22 January 2016 at 12:20, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> 1) I realise this is a somewhat silly question, but is this still >> acceptable "undefined behaviour"? > > Yes, it is. I always thought these out-of-range instructions did produce an "undef" rather than allowing fully-general undefined behaviour (otherwise we

Hi Lorenzo, Thanks for the report. Can you create a new entry in Bugzilla? With steps to reproduce (command line options, etc) and how you're getting the value of the triple (debugger?). http://llvm.org/bugs/ cheers, --renato On 27 March 2016 at 17:15, Lorenzo Laneve via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > In these days I’ve integrated llc code into my compiler. >