similar to: No RID Set found for this server. Can't self-allocate

The Samba ports are not filtered. The firewall is between STG-DC and SAMBADC (both of them sync correctly). The sync problems happen in VIG-DC3, which is behind the same firewall of STG-DC. Here's nmap output (SAMBADC is 172.16.50.9): root at vig-dc3:~# nmap -Pn 172.16.50.9 Starting Nmap 7.93 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2024-05-23 08:22 UTC Nmap scan report for SAMBADC.ugt.ldap (172.16.50.9)

Hi, everybody! I have been using samab on Debian for years and I have recently migrated my file server from version 3.0.14a-3sarge2 to 3.0.24-6etch4. One or our applications stores its data in a shared folder. This data is distributed in over 29000 files of about 1k-40k and is so much slower when it runs on the new server. I have thoroughly revised both smb.conf files, but can't see

Hi, everybody! I am having certain problems accessing my Samba domain. I have set up several XP SP2 clients to access a Samba 3.0.10 PDC running on a Debian testing server. Problem #1: Suddenly, the domain stopped working: it could not even be accessed browsing the network. After some investigation, I found that nobody could connect to the shares or log on to the domain, except one of the

Hi Chris, > Icmp sgt is correct. while ugt would be wrong, I think sgt is too! For example, suppose %buf is 0 and %bufLen is ~0U. Then %add.ptr is ~0U, and %cmp is true, so control branches to %if.then. However in the optimized version %cmp is false and control branches to %if.end. The GEP does have an inbounds attribute, I'm not sure if that is relevant here. Ciao, Duncan. Note

Icmp sgt is correct. Note that "ugt x, 0" is the same as "x != 0" which is not what you want. -Chris On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Jonas Gefele <llvm.org at schrieb.de> wrote: > Hello, > > while writing a new LLVM backend I have observed that in some cases the > optimizer produces an "icmp sgt i32 %a, 0" where I would have expected an >

Up to now, I have recognized problems with "gpd(..)", the function from the package "evir" I think that all these functions that estimate the parameters xi, beta for the GPD by given threshold mu use the function "optim(..)" ( gpd, fitgpd, ...) "Error" example: data1 <- rgpd(1000, xi= -1.5, mu=1000, beta=100) so the created poinnts take place in about

While looking at what llvm writes for this testcase, I noticed that there is one redundant operation in resulting assembly. The second 'cmp' operation there is essentially identical to the first one, with reversed order of arguments. Therefore, it is not needed. This testcase is a simple integer comparison routine, similar to what qsort would take to sort an integer array. I think

Hello, while writing a new LLVM backend I have observed that in some cases the optimizer produces an "icmp sgt i32 %a, 0" where I would have expected an "icmp ugt i32 %a, 0". For example when I feed "opt -O3 -S ..." (LLVM 2.9, Windows) with ------------------------------------------------------------------------ target datalayout = "E-p:32:32:32"

Hi, Can any llvm pass change simple return branch into select/return pair? For example: define i10 @mod_N(i10 zeroext %a) zeroext { entry: %tmp2 = icmp ugt i10 %a, -400 ; <i1> [#uses=1] br i1 %tmp2, label %cond_true, label %return cond_true: ; preds = %entry %tmp5 = add i10 %a, 400 ; <i10> [#uses=1] ret i10 %tmp5 return: ; preds = %entry ret

On Jan 22, 2008, at 2:10 AM, humeafo wrote: > I am a newbie to LLVM, so I have to say sorry if I asked the > question in the wrong place. > In some cases when I generate LLVM IR from machine assembly(with > limited type information) I have to convert the pointers to I32, > after the standard mem2reg pass there still are things like: > > inttoptr i32 %1 to i8* > >

Does the nonnull parameter attribute give us information about subsequent uses of that value outside of the function that has the attribute? Example: define i1 @bar(i32* nonnull %x) { ; %x must be non-null in this function %y = load i32, i32* %x %z = icmp ugt i32 %y, 23 ret i1 %z } define i1 @foo(i32* %x) { %d = call i1 @bar(i32* %x) %null_check = icmp eq i32* %x, null ; check if null

and AJB kernel-2.6.35-3.bcat.src.rpm [I see AlanBartlett as the last editor on that page] I have installed the given ajb source rpm kernel-2.6.35-3.bcat.src.rpm, and verified that it is intact: [herrold at kernel-bleeder linux-2.6.35.i686]$ rpm -Vp ~/build/ajb/sources/kernel-2.6.35-3.bcat.src.rpm warning: /home/herrold/build/ajb/sources/kernel-2.6.35-3.bcat.src.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature:

> If we don't care about trying to optimize out overflow checks in > InstCombine, I'd go with moving the complexity to CGP. I think instcombine should optimize out overflow checks (as it does today) without introducing _with_overflow calls. Are there reasons why such an approach would not work? > However, I think > InstCombine is doing the right thing here by forming these.

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > >> >> On Oct 18, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: >> >> As for why it should be an IR pass, mostly because once the selection >>> dag runs through the code, we can never

Hi, This message is a result of a discussion of backend optimization for sub(max) pattern(https://reviews.llvm.org/D25987), which can be either converted to unsigned min-max or unsigned saturation instruction(if the target supports it). Currently these versions of the code produce different IR(and we need to manage both types in backend): (1.16) void foo(unsigned short *p, unsigned short max,

Hello I want to make some variables with the ifelse-function, but i don't know how to do it. I want to make these five variables; b2$PRRSvac <- ifelse(b2$status=='A' | b2$status=='Aa',1,0) b2$PRRSdk <- ifelse(b2$status=='B' | b2$status=='Bb',1,0) b2$sanVac <- ifelse(b2$status=='C' | b2$status=='sanAa',1,0) b2$sanDk <-

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Chris, > >> Icmp sgt is correct. > > while ugt would be wrong, I think sgt is too! > > For example, suppose %buf is 0 and %bufLen is ~0U.  Then %add.ptr is ~0U, and > %cmp is true, so control branches to %if.then.  However in the optimized version > %cmp is false and control branches

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 3:47:03 PM > Subject: [llvm-dev] analysis based on nonnull attribute > Does the nonnull parameter attribute give us information about > subsequent uses of that value

On 5/16/2017 6:30 AM, Sanjay Patel wrote: > Thanks for posting this question, Julia. > > I had a similar question about a signed min/max variant here: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/106868.html > > The 2nd version in each case contains a canonical max/min > representation in IR, and this could enable more IR analysis. > A secondary advantage is

Hello, I am a new user of R. I am trying to use the packages fBasics and fExtremes when i am running the examples I get few error. Could someone tell me what is happenig? Thank you beforehand. from Fbasics packages: xmpfBasics() Error in file(file, "r") : unable to open connection In addition: Warning message: cannot open file '/usr/lib/R/library/fBasics/demoIndex'