similar to: Xen IA64

Dear Team, The OpenLDAP stuff on this page: http://us4.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-Guide/happy.html is not the preferred backend, i.e. ldbm, it really, really needs to be bdb. See: http://www.openldap.org/faq/index.cgi?_highlightWords=bdb%20ldbm&file=1085 "ldbm uses a neutral storage interface which in principle could wrap dbm, ndbm, gdbm or sleepycat as underlying storage;

Hi, I do have few questions regarding xapine as I'm a newbie in this and would appreciate if someone could give me some insight: 1: When I'm trying to index , why it creates/opens so many files, e.g.this is how one of my index looks like: % ~/xapian_index> ls db_lock position_baseA record_DB termlist_baseA meta postlist_DB record_baseA value_DB

Hello friendly Rails community, I''m sorry for this OT post, I''ve just switched to Mac and as I see there are so many friendly mac users here, may I ask is there another good/nice Subversion installation tutorial instead of this one: http://developer.apple.com/tools/subversionxcode.html? Is there another way to install it without compiling Subversion by myself? For example via

(removed In-Reply-To header) On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:01:12AM +0000, WipeOut wrote: > >> > >>And make sure to send in a disclaimer otherwise it will not even be > >>looked at.. :) > >> > >How do we know what is disclaimed or not disclaimed? > >/O > > > Digium have all the Disclaimers and will not develop or include any code > into

On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: > Does anyone actually using it? Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. > I'd prefer to just remove it to clean up the implementation if no one has > any objections. Are you saying that you want to remove LLVM's working TCO and replace it with something that is faster but broken? I think you may

On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: >> Does anyone actually using it? > > Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. Ok, that's all I need to know. > >> I'd prefer to just remove it to clean up the implementation if no one has >> any objections. > > Are you

Some frontends for LLVM require that LLVM perform tail call optimization (TCO) for correctness. Internally, LLVM refers to TCO of a non-recursive tail call as sibling call optimization, but I'm going to refer to that generically as TCO. Often, functional languages like Scheme have a language-level requirement that TCO occurs for any call in the tail position, and this is usually why users of

Dear R-Help, I am trying to compute a new variable, let's call it "target cannon orientation (tco)" based conditionally on old variables, "TargetColor," "CannonOriB," and "CannonOriR." For every case in the data set, if TargetColor is "B" then I want tco to equal the value for that case of CannonOirB, else CannonOriR. I've tried writing

Hello The DB() application is fine as long as we don't need more than one value pointed to by a key, ie. the way SleepyCat works. Problem is, for each phone number, I'd like to map more than one column, eg. name, e-mail, fax, etc. Is there a way to have DB() use SQLite instead of AST, or a way to keep both in sync (ie. export data from AST to SQLite automatically)? Thank you.

Hello! I thought this was a mistake, sorry. So I created the shared directories and defined which groups can access this directory and includes the users in the defined group. However, the user defined in the group cannot access the directory, gives access denied. Take a look at the settings, if you can give me a direction of where my error is. # smb.conf [SHARE] comment = SHARE path =

Evan Cheng wrote: > As far as I can tell only PPC and X86 targets are supporting this option. Does anyone actually using it? I'd prefer to just remove it to clean up the implementation if no one has any objections. Don't know whether that is the same, but my Pure compiler sets llvm::PerformTailCallOpt. Pure needs TCO because it doesn't have any built-in looping constructs. In

I''m moving my Subversion repository to a new server. The old server uses Berkeley DB/Sleepycat and if memory serves, it was a lot of effort to set that up -- so I think I''ll try FSFS. Does anybody use BDB and prefer that over FSFS? Or had any problems with FSFS? (I never had any problems with BDB, performance or otherwise, btw.) Thanks, Joe -- Posted via

On Saturday 06 February 2010 02:42:47 Evan Cheng wrote: > On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > On Friday 05 February 2010 23:35:15 Evan Cheng wrote: > >> Does anyone actually using it? > > > > Yes, many LLVM-based projects rely upon TCO to work correctly. > > Ok, that's all I need to know. > > >> I'd prefer to just remove it to

Hi, Recently I'm noticing an interesting issue. My CentOS servers are trying to send logs to a logging server via 514/udp, however I'm not receiving anything. I did the following on CentOS *tcpdump -vvv -nn udp -i esn160 port 514* In another session on the same server: *nc syslog-server -u 514* tcpdump started to show me messages like: *[bad udp cksum 0x3ce9 -> 0xb0f5!] SYSLOG,

Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > Try batch compiling with the large code model. (llc -code-model=large) > If that also causes tail calls to break, then I did something wrong in > fixing far calls in the JIT. Jeffrey, I took a closer look at this now, and all the TCO-related weirdness I see in the Pure interpreter is indeed related to your commit in r88984 ("Make X86-64 in the Large model

I just upgraded HLVM from LLVM 2.7 to 2.8 and started seeing stack overflows so I think TCO isn't working. Have there been any obvious changes that would cause this? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com

Jon Harrop wrote: > I just upgraded HLVM from LLVM 2.7 to 2.8 and started seeing stack overflows > so I think TCO isn't working. Have there been any obvious changes that would > cause this? FWIW, Pure uses TCO as well and that works fine with LLVM 2.8, both with the JIT and with statically compiled code, at least on x86_64. -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics,

People, I came to Samba 3 or 4 weeks ago and now have a successful ldapsam 3.0.11 PDC installation for 1150+ users (around 80 Win 2000 and XP workstations) running together with a DHCP server as an "afterthought" service on a RHAS3 NAS server. I adopted/adapted my already existent Openldap (2.2.17) DSE at that site) and wrote to this list about my experiences. For example I

My compiler is generating a bunch of code including the following line: %57 = call fastcc i32 @aux(%1* %0, %1 %1, %1 %46, i32 0, %4 %2) ; <i32> [#uses=1] ret i32 %57 The program works fine as long as this isn't a tail call. If I compile via a .ll and insert "tail" by hand, the program segfaults. However, if I make it a tail call and return an undef i8* or void instead

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: >> I've come up with the following minimal repro that segfaults on my machine: > > Jon, were you able to resolve this? > > FWIW, TOT is causing all kinds of weird segfaults related to tail calls > in my Pure interpreter, too (at least on x86-64). In my case these