similar to: Hi

Greetings, I am learning R My machine has these; CPU: 3cores amd64 OS pure-64bit CBLFS liux compiled from sources (kernel 3.2.1, gcc-4.6.2 R-2.15 When I compiled R the compiler spewed out lines like these:- make[3]: Entering directory `/tmp/RtmpiHdDJy/R.INSTALL472339eeb23a/mgcv/src' gcc -m64 -std=gnu99 -I/home/Rman/R-2.15.0/include -DNDEBUG - I/usr/local/atlas/include

Sending again. Can somebody please take a look and let me know is this is doable? Folks, We have glusters with version 3.8.13 and we are using that for RMAN backups. We get errors/warnings, RMAN-03009: failure of backup command on C1 channel at 03/28/2018 16:55:43 ORA-19510: failed to set size of 184820 blocks for file

1c54d77 (x86: partial unification of asm-x86/bitops.h, 2008-01-30) changed a bunch of btrl/btsl instructions to btr/bts, with the following justification: The inline assembly for the bit operations has been changed to remove explicit sizing hints on the instructions, so the assembler will pick the appropriate instruction forms depending on the architecture and the context. Unfortunately,

(resent without HTML) On 07/14/2013 05:56 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > 1c54d77 (x86: partial unification of asm-x86/bitops.h, 2008-01-30) > changed a bunch of btrl/btsl instructions to btr/bts, with the following > justification: > > The inline assembly for the bit operations has been changed to remove > explicit sizing hints on the instructions, so the assembler will

With the standard setup unchanged from 2.7.2, I am seeing make[3]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/r-base-2.8.0~20081005/po' make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/r-base-2.8.0~20081005/po' you should 'make docs' now ... make[2]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/r-base-2.8.0~20081005/doc' make[3]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/r-base-2.8.0~20081005/doc/manual' make[3]:

Hi, When attempting to restore to LINUX RHEL5 - OCFS2 filesystem received the following error during RMAN restore for nearly all of the datafiles attempted to restore with exception of a couple of smaller datafiles which were smaller < 2GB. ORA-19870: error reading backup piece /db/dumps/TR1_1/rmanbackup/TR1_88_1 ORA-19502: write error on file "/db/devices/db1/PR2/pr2_1/pr2.data1",

Afternoon, We have an ocfs2 release 1.4 filesystem shared between two nodes (RHEL5). The filesystem in question is used exclusively for Oracle RMAN backups. A df -h shows the following: [root at imsthdb07 ~]# df -h /data/orabackup Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/eva_mpio_myserver07_08_oracle_bkup0 250G

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since > Intel 386. GNU as supports them fine. Unfortunately, LLVM does not > support them, and barfs with: > > error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix > > Fix this problem by disambiguating it

Jim Grosbach wrote: > To say that another way, is the assembler correctly diagnosing a previously > unnoticed problem in the project source code, or is the assembler not > behaving correctly according the the documented Intel assembly mnemonics? Where are the authoritative instruction set pages? If such a thing were readily available, why are there gaps in the current implementation? A

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > Jim Grosbach wrote: >> To say that another way, is the assembler correctly diagnosing a previously >> unnoticed problem in the project source code, or is the assembler not >> behaving correctly according the the documented Intel assembly mnemonics? > > Where are the authoritative

On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra > <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: >> Jim Grosbach wrote: >>> To say that another way, is the assembler correctly diagnosing a previously >>> unnoticed problem in the project source code, or is the assembler not >>>

We're using RMAN to back up our 9.2 RAC database to an OCFS v1 volume. We have an existing shell script that we use for copying files from disk to tape via tar, one file at a time. (Don't ask why. It's a legacy script. Long story.) We're tweaking this script to use --o_direct when tarring the file to tape and that seems to be working fine: # tape device is /dev/nst0 $ tar

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > 1c54d77 (x86: partial unification of asm-x86/bitops.h, 2008-01-30) > changed a bunch of btrl/btsl instructions to btr/bts, with the following > justification: > > The inline assembly for the bit operations has been changed to remove > explicit sizing hints on the instructions, so the

Eli Friedman wrote: > The reason it's the right thing to do is that the mem/imm forms of > btsw and btsl have exactly the same semantics. The Intel documentation implies that this is the case: > If the bit base operand specifies a memory location, it represents the address of the byte in memory that contains the bit base (bit 0 of the specified byte) of the bit string (see Figure

We are in the process of upgrading to OCFS2. We have recently restored our Production Database to a Development platform configured with OCFS2 with RMAN. No problems. As for the Production migration, we understand that you cannot mount an OCFS volume (our current configuration) with OCFS2. We are interested in mounting an EXT3 file system, performing a cold RMAN backup, copying the datafiles

Jim Grosbach wrote: > Also, please elaborate on why this is a good change. Because gas accepts it > isn’t sufficient reason in and of itself. That they're valid instructions isn't sufficient reason? Should I additionally say that linux.git uses them? I wrote: > The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since > Intel 386.

Also, please elaborate on why this is a good change. Because gas accepts it isn’t sufficient reason in and of itself. -Jim On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra > <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: >> The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since

Hi, I happened to notice that linux.git uses plenty of btr and bts instructions (not btrl, btrw, btsl, btsw). For examples, see arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h. LLVM barfs on these due to ambiguity, while GNU as is fine with them. Surely, there must be architectures where the w/l variant is unavailable? LLVM must support those architectures, no? Thanks.

On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > Jim Grosbach wrote: >> Also, please elaborate on why this is a good change. Because gas accepts it >> isn’t sufficient reason in and of itself. > > That they're valid instructions isn't sufficient reason? Should I > additionally say that linux.git uses them? > Is the

could you please send me a copy of the btr driver/kernel?NrybXǧv^)޺{.n+{n߲)w*jgݢj/zޖ2ޙ&)ߡaGhj:+vw٥