similar to: C6.6 Gnome panel problem

On 07/27/2015 05:34 AM, Fred Smith wrote: > Hi all! > > I usually keep the panels on my Centos 6.6 (Gnome) so they auto-hide, > but t'other day I wanted to keep the top panel visible for a while to > make the clock visible for doing some rough timings. > > so I open the top panel, click properties, and UNcheck the "autohide" > checkbox, close the properties

I can right click on the top panel and select "Delete Panel" on centos 4.5 however, is there a way to do that in a shell script? I was looking at gconf-editor under apps/panel/toplevels/top_panel but I dont see anything there about "dont show it at all". Thanks, Jerry

I am doing the following commands to "hide" the top and bottom panels on gnome. gconftool-2 -t int --list-type int --set /apps/panel/toplevels/top_panel/auto_hide_size 0 gconftool-2 -t bool --list-type bool --set /apps/panel/toplevels/top_panel/auto_hide true gconftool-2 -t int --list-type int --set /apps/panel/toplevels/bottom_panel/auto_hide_size 0

Was reading the long list of things being deprecated in the RHEL 8 release notes t'other day, and saw my old friend sendmail on the list. I've stuck by her because I've learned how she likes to be stroked to get the best out of her, and quail at the thought of taking on a new MTA and having to learn it all all over again. But I guess I'm going to have to, soon or late, probably

On 01/09/2015 06:07 PM, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote: > I'm still trying to find the > thing I used back in C5(?) that raised the panels when the mouse hovered > over it for X seconds. With C6 I can't find it anymore and it switches > way too fast. I presume you're talking about panels with "Autohide" set. If you have the GUI gconf-editor installed, it's under

That is a good question and I don't know. The optimization is defined include/llvm/Analysis/ObjectUtils.h. If I enable that for weak_odr + unnamed_addr, no tests are failing so I guess it is a safe optimization? :) It is probably because the autohide optimization is targeted at c++ templates and inline functions and we know they have linkonce_odr linkage, which suggests whoever uses this

There should be no semantic difference between linkonce_odr and weak_odr, except that weak_odr is non-discardable. Why doesn't the autohide optimization work just as well on weak_odr + unnamed_addr as linkonce_odr + unnamed_addr? On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Steven Wu via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I recently found that thinLTO doesn't deal

>From looking at the code, it seems like LLVM is basically opting MachO into -fvisibility-inlines-hidden all the time, i.e. if the function is linkonce, it's discardable, so mark it hidden to pretend the compiler inlined it and discarded it. However, this isn't conforming, because the addresses of inline functions will no longer compare equal across DSOs. Realistically, nobody cares

On 01/11/2015 04:19 PM, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote: > On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 21:02 -0600, Robert Nichols wrote: >> I presume you're talking about panels with "Autohide" set. If you have >> the GUI gconf-editor installed, it's under apps/panel/global/panel_show_delay. >> You can also set it from the command line: >> >> gconftool-2 --type int

I turned on the auto hide of the TOP panel on gnome desktop. I does hide but I still see like 2 or 3 pixel lines of the panel??? How can I completely hide the top panel? I tried change the number of pixels in the panel it always still shows a couple pixel lines. I have a dell inspiron 8200 laptop. THanks, for any suggestions. Jerry -------------- Using gconf-editor path

Listmates, This is no biggie, 8.6 is working well so far. However, I do notice 1-2 lines of pixelization at the top of the screen on keyboard rotate. I know this hasn't been there since the 0.5.6-0.6 days when compiz was first released for opensuse years ago. It wasn't there up through 8.2. The gpu is the radeon X1200 using the fglrx-legacy driver. Looking at the screenshot it actually

Hi, Has anyone thought about using the multichannel format as a way of distributing "musician minus one" files? Eh? I hear you ask. Ok. Basically these are multitrack files but you can mute the solo track so you, the musician, can practice against the other "players". You can buy CD's of this nature, but of course, the solo instrument is on one channel and the others on

Hi, I recently found that thinLTO doesn't deal with globals that has linkonce_odr and unnamed_addr (for macho at least) because it prohibits the autohide optimization during link time. In LLVM, we tagged a global linkonce_odr and unnamed_addr to indicate to the linker can hide them from symbol table if they were picked (aka, linkonce_odr_auto_hide linkage). It is very commonly used for some

We didn't drop unnamed_addr. I just don't think weakodr_addr + unnamed_addr is safe to hide in all cases. I don't know if I interpreted local_unnamed_addr correctly but I think it is mostly the same in thinLTO for ld64. The code generator only looks at the individual module and ld64 will be in charge of merging all the symbols with autohide. It doesn't really help in this case.

I was using a Flash video player within a previous Rails version app Moving to Rails 3.1.0 , I dob''t know where I should put the script ... I tried to move it into an app asset sub-directory assets - jwplayer - - player.swf but this raises an error "NetworkError: 406 Not Acceptable - http://localhost:3000/assets/jwplayer/player.swf" player.swf the flash script is given as a

> But it is interesting in general because according to the definition for local_unnamed_addr, the symbol has to be linkonce_odr to be auto hide as well. ThinLTO promotion can break that as well. What do you mean that the promotion can break that? The original description I found here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D20348 says that it is possible to exclude a global from the symbol table if three

> On Feb 7, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > But it is interesting in general because according to the definition for local_unnamed_addr, the symbol has to be linkonce_odr to be auto hide as well. ThinLTO promotion can break that as well. > > What do you mean that the promotion can break that? > > The original description I found

2018-02-07 12:45 GMT-08:00 Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com>: > > > On Feb 7, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > But it is interesting in general because according to the definition > for local_unnamed_addr, the symbol has to be linkonce_odr to be auto hide > as well. ThinLTO promotion can break that as well. > > What do

Something I haven't seen mentioned: why are we dropping the unnamed_addr? Can't we preserve it with the weak symbol? Would it be OK to add auto-hide in this case (maybe it would already happen)? Can we use the new local_unnamed_addr that was added (by pcc or Rafael I don't remember)? I think this attribute matches exactly the `auto-hide` semantic. Wasn't the idea that this could be

> On Feb 7, 2018, at 4:03 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2018-02-07 12:45 GMT-08:00 Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com <mailto:stevenwu at apple.com>>: > > >> On Feb 7, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com <mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> > But it is interesting in