similar to: Disable Samba V1 communication protococl between server and AD controller

Please find the reply inline below On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:59 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 10:42 AM Vinay Madhusudan via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Reply to Kiran Chandramohan: >> >> > You are welcome to participate, provide feedback and criticism to >> change the

Reply to Kiran Chandramohan: > You are welcome to participate, provide feedback and criticism to change the design as well as to contribute to the implementation. Thank you Kiran. > But the latest is what is there in the RFC in discourse. I have used this as reference for the response. > We did a study of a few constructs and clauses which was shared as mails to flang-dev and the

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 1:40 PM David Greene via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > > But perhaps more importantly, as Hal states clearly, is the need for > > an official specification, similar to the one for LLVM IR, as well as > > a formal document with the expected semantics into

Hello, I was reading about secure Dialect negotiation to prevent man-in-middle to downgrade dialects & capabilities. _https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/openspecification/2012/06/28/smb3-secure-dialect-negotiation/_ I wanted to ask, is there any option to disable SMB2 to do dialect renegotiation as present in Windows8 clients, as they can control using RequireSecureNegotiate. -- Thanks Amit

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > What's the use case? the use case is that we can print out the assembly using alternative dialect. currently, on Intel machine, the default dialect is AT&T, and we cannot change that to Intel syntax without using cl:opt. the new public method lets us change the dialect without having cl:opt involved.

Thanks for the reply! It sounds like LLVM IR is being considered for optimizations in OpenMP constructs. There seems to be plans regarding improvement of LLVM IR Framework for providing things required for OpenMP / flang(?) Are there any design considerations which contain pros and cons about using the MLIR vs LLVM IR for various OpenMP related optimizations/ transformations? The latest RFC [

Hi, I have few questions / concerns regarding the design of OpenMP dialect in MLIR that is currently being implemented, mainly for the f18 compiler. Below, I summarize the current state of various efforts in clang / f18 / MLIR / LLVM regarding this. Feel free to add to the list in case I have missed something. 1. [May 2019] An OpenMPIRBuilder in LLVM was proposed for flang and clang frontends.

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:54 PM David Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> writes: > > > Of course by its nature, MLIR doesn't lend itself to concrete semantic > >> descriptions, though I would expect the affine dialect (and others) to > >> have documentation on par with the LLVM IR. > > > > >

Please help me interpret the following results. The full model (Schwa~Dialect*Prediction*Reduction) was reduced via both update() and step(). The minimal adequate model is: ancova<-lm(Schwa~Dialect+Prediction+Reduction+Dialect:Prediction) Schwa is response variable Dialect is factor, two levels ("QF","SF") Prediction is factor, two levels ("High","Low")

currently, there is no (easy) way to set the AssemblerDialect. the only method i am aware of is to set that via cl:opt. this patch fixes that by adding a public function setAssemblerDialect() to class MCAsmInfo. Signed-off-by: Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> diff --git a/include/llvm/MC/MCAsmInfo.h b/include/llvm/MC/MCAsmInfo.h index 97aad71..cd08a7e 100644 ---

I increased the logging to 10 on the problem member server. Didn't see anything of interest. I did a packet capture on the PDC while typing " net rpc testjoin" from both the problem member server (4.4.14) and a working member server (4.4.13) e.g SMB: ----- SMB Header ----- SMB: SMB: CLIENT REQUEST SMB: Command code = 0x72 SMB:

What's the use case? On Oct 1, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> wrote: > currently, there is no (easy) way to set the AssemblerDialect. the > only method i am aware of is to set that via cl:opt. > > this patch fixes that by adding a public function > setAssemblerDialect() to class MCAsmInfo. > > Signed-off-by: Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at

Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 22:06 Uhr schrieb Uday Kumar Reddy Bondhugula < uday at polymagelabs.com>: > Hi Michael, > > Although the approach to use a higher order in-memory abstraction like the > loop tree will make it easier than what you have today, if you used MLIR > for this representation, you already get a round trippable textual format > that is *very close* to your

Interesting - the patch doesn't address this yet. It looks like we have a difference (maybe bug?) in how we handle Intel vs. AT&T inline assembly: https://godbolt.org/z/GQw9ED Suppose we're expanding an operand with an 'i' constraint, where the operand is given as, e.g. (i32* @Bar). If the inline assembly is in Intel dialect, this expands as "Bar" in AT&T syntax

On 9/27/19 5:38 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:36:42PM -0500, Christopher Cox via samba wrote: >> On 9/27/19 1:32 PM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: >> ....snippity... >>> I repeat, smbclient never had anything to do with network browsing, so >>> it is unlikely to have anything to do with Network Discovery. Perhaps >>> you are

Hi, I am enhancing the Samba Server on our product (VxWorks on the box) to support Long Name. So I started implementing the dialect "LM1.2X002" (first dialect that supports Long Name, the current dialect that we support are PC Network Program). I have implemented the Negotiation, Tree Connect AndX, Open AndX and Transaction2 (FIND_FIRST2) commands etc. I am able to open the shared

Am So., 12. Jan. 2020 um 20:07 Uhr schrieb Chris Lattner < clattner at nondot.org>: > The central idea is to use a modifiable loop tree -- similar to > LoopInfo -- as the primary representation. LLVM-IR is converted to a > loop tree, then optimized and finally LLVM-IR is generated again for > subtrees that are considered profitable. This is not a new concept, it > has already

Hi, I am enhancing the Samba Server on our product (VxWorks on the box) to support Long Name. So I started implementing the dialect "LM1.2X002" (first dialects that support Long Name, the current dialect that we support is PC Network Program). I have implemented the Negotiation, Tree Connect AndX and Open AndX command. When I try access the shared drive of our product, after the

Good catch. I had set server max protocol to NT1 after upgrading from samba 3.x to 4.x . Some windows clients had problems with SMB2 and file shares (tho this should not really be an issue with the domain controllers.) I have now set the dc's to server max protocol = SMB2 server min protocol = NT1 and the client machine to be client max protocol = SMB2

Dear all, During a recent package submission, we were highlighted that some lines in our configure script didn't follow the correct syntax. The lines looked like this: x=$(($y/10)) We were indicated at the time that this is because the statement does not use Bourne shell syntax, which is absolutely true, and also that the manual warns about this, which is true again. So far everything