similar to: policy or rules

I am getting the following message when Shorewall stops can anybody shed any light on this message and where I should be looking? Thanks root@bobshost:~# shorewall stop Loading /usr/share/shorewall/functions... Processing /etc/shorewall/params ... Processing /etc/shorewall/shorewall.conf... Loading Modules... Stopping Shorewall...Processing /etc/shorewall/stop ... IP Forwarding Enabled

I have a shorewall 2.0.14 running on a single interface machine (nwww in the log below) that is attempting to be well screwed down. The policy file reads:- #SOURCE DEST POLICY LOG LEVEL LIMIT:BURST fw net DROP info net all DROP info # The FOLLOWING POLICY MUST BE LAST all all

Hi! I don;t know what i am doing wrong because i have still Low ID on aMule. I have action.AllowaMule and accept tcp 4662:4771 and udp 4672. Thanks, Mitja

Hi all, I have a problem with a new Shorewall box I''m trying to migrate from iptables rules to shorewall 2.2.0. I have a 3 interfaces setup: - eth0 ---> internet (ip address) - eth1 ---> remote office (10.0.0.0/8) - eth2 ---> lan (192.168.16.0/24) I''m using a very simple and common setup, with just a few DNAT rules in my /etc/shorewall/rules file, and about twenty

Hi all, I was trying to test ROUTE specific code with a multi-isp serviced box. There is a bug somewhere, but I''m not able to understand what the real problem is: when I issue a "shorewall show capabilities" I get: Loading /usr/share/shorewall/functions... Processing /etc/shorewall/params ... Processing /etc/shorewall/shorewall.conf... Loading Modules... Shorewall has

My sincere apologies for the messed up 2.0.14. I didn''t realize that I had merged a change from 2.2.0 but hadn''t tested it. http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.0/shorewall-2.0.15 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.0/shorewall-2.0.15 1. The range of ports opened by the AllowTrcrt action has been expanded to 33434:33524 to allow for a maximum of 30 hops. 2. Code mis-ported

Hi , I would like to know if a R function have the same behaviour than the matlab solve function. I tried something with uniroot but I have some problems: The equation I need to solve is : exp(c0-r0)*(bb0+x)*(bb1-x)=(bb0+x+1)(bb1-x-1) So I tried this: STEP 1: my function test test <- function(x,bb0=-3,bb1=5,c0=2,r0=0) { + ((exp(c0-r0)*(bb0+x)*(bb1-x))/((bb0+x+1)(bb1-x-1))-1)} STEP 2: >

Hello, I have two for loops (one inside the other), that after indvars, looprotate, etc. (the important here is the loop rotate), is similar to this (I've stripped the real operations): define i32 @f() nounwind { entry: br label %bb1 bb1: ; preds = %bb3, %bb1, %entry %i.0.reg2mem.0.ph = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %i.0.reg2mem.0.ph, %bb1 ], [ %indvar.next9, %bb3 ] ;

Dear all, I'm working on an exploratory backend on llvm. In the instruction set I'm using I have an instruction (called DECJNZ) that decrements a register and, if the decremented value is not zero, jumps (with a relative jump) to a given offset. I've described in tablegen this instruction as follow: def DECJNZ : Instruction { let Namespace = "MyTarget"; let

Hi all, I''m using Gentoo Linux Distribution and I''ve upgraded my firewall from Shorewall 1.4 to 2.0.4, however my LANs stop having internet access. I have a server with shorewall 2.0.4 installed and 3 interfaces. eth0 and eth1 are interfaces to a LAN and to my laptop and eth2 is the net interface. I have masq like: eth2 eth0 eth2 eth1

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Thanks for the answers! The plan makes sense to me. > > Regarding phis, what about diamonds, e.g.: > > > define i32 @f(i32 %x) { > br .., label %bb0, label %bb1 > bb0: > %cmp = icmp sge i32 %x, 0 ; x > 0 > br i1 %cmp, label %bb2, label %bb3 > bb1: > %x2 = add nsw

Hi, I have the following problem: In BB0 there is an instruction that defines a flag (implicit def) and in BB1 there is one that reads the flag (implicit use). When i run llc with -O3, the instruction in BB0 that defines the flag is removed. How can i prevent this? BB0 and BB1 are consecutive basic blocks. Thanks, Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm working on an exploratory backend on llvm. In the instruction set I'm using > I have an instruction (called DECJNZ) that decrements a register and, if the > decremented value is not zero, jumps (with a relative jump) to a given offset. > > I've

Hi, When I run opt on the following LLVM IR: define i32 @foo() { bb0: %0 = bitcast i32 2139171423 to float %1 = insertelement <1 x float> undef, float %0, i32 0 %2 = extractelement <1 x float> %1, i32 0 %3 = bitcast float %2 to i32 ret i32 %3 } -> It generates: define i32 @foo() { bb0: ret i32 2143365727 } While tracking the value I see that the floating point value

I was wondering if it was possible to get a Samba server that was acting as an AD member server to also be able to authenticate local users, or is stuck just serving AD users? -- Aaron Clausen mightymartianca at gmail.com

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Many thanks for working on this! > SSI/e-SSA is the only way I'm aware of for doing efficient sparse > analyses, so I'm definitely in favor of adding support for it in LLVM! > > I read the discussion so far and did a cursory review of the patches, and > I have just a

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:27:30 -0800, Devang Patel wrote: > On Nov 9, 2011, at 12:52 AM, cafxx wrote: > >> I was wondering, is there any way to express in the IR that an >> instruction/instruction sequence/basic >> block/region/function/module/whatever is an alternate version of >> another? > > There is not a way to represent --- instruction I1 is an alternative

> On 25 May 2018, at 03:53, Aaron <acraft at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Dean, > > Thanks for your reply. > > That's exactly what I am doing, but I was looking for a default optimization or pass implementation if there was. > There’s a dead code elimination pass, but it works with a control flow graph (it removes basic blocks that are unreachable after constant

>> all the zero paths from entry to %a pass by %b. > > > That is a graph-wise definition, sure. > So, this is an interesting definition, and maybe this is part of the source > of the problem. > > For SSA, at least GCC requires that both "definition block dominates use > block" (which would be true here), *and* > that "definition appears before use in

Hi Bruce, On 25.02.19 13:10, Bruce Hoult wrote: > LLVM has no idea whether the address computed by GEP is actually > within a legal object. The "inbounds" keyword is just you, the > programmer, promising LLVM that you know it's ok and that you don't > care what happens if it is actually out of bounds. > >