search for: misconstruing

Either you're being disingenuous are truly looking to confuse a situation only someone ignorant of what LLVM could ever misconstrue. Why would Apple dump hundreds of millions in R&D with Clang/LLVM, create Swift and introduce it to everyone and the press for WWDC 2014, followed up by posting on the LLVM list only to be moving away from LLVM? More importantly, who appointed you e-mail

There have been various elegant solutions to test for the presence of a particular named parameter within a ... argument, such as if (!is.null(list(...)$ylim)) if ("ylim" %in% names(list(...))) I think I'd have to comment these lines pretty clearly if I wanted to easily follow the code in 6 months time. But I'm still not convinced it is ever a good idea to use this technique

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Michael Gottesman <mgottesman at apple.com> wrote: ... > I have actually timed said instructions in the past and reproduced Agner > Fog's results. I just prefer to speak by referring to facts that can not be > misconstrued as hearsay = ). That would be great. Also, can you point me to the Agner Fog table that you are referring to? Thanks.

Don't want the opening line of my post to be misconstrued. "Anyone familiar with the BrookTrout TR1034 Fax Board, supports T.38 and PSTN fax in an Asterisk environment?" That's a question, not a statement. Curious if anyone has played with one of these as an extension of an Asterisk server for T.38 faxing, did not mean to imply it could, should or would play well with

...oad the package into R running under another OS. I see this error when I execute library ('simple') under linux: Error: package 'simple' was built for powerpc-apple-darwin7.9.0 I'll be grateful if anyone can help me work around this restriction ... or let me know how I am misconstruing the evidence. Thank you! - Paul Shannon Institute for Systems Biology Seattle

I'm not looking to start a discussion of the GPL on R-devel; I'm just giving a reference because the subject of the GPL, the license under which R is issued, has been brought up on this list. If you want to follow some of the legal discussion of the Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPL), the web site groklaw.net is required reading. One reason is because Pamela

I was misconstrued as having insulted Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. My words were twisted and misinterpreted and I feel that there is a need to explain myself and set the record straight. [b]What really happened[/b] It was sometime in Aug/Sep in the year 2009. The setting was in the Tampines Central office of Asiasoft Online Pte Ltd. I was having a ***verbal*** conversation with Melvin Lee,

> It appears that the stats you listed are for movaps [SSE], not vmovaps [AVX]. I would *assume* that vmovaps(m128) is closer to vmovaps(m256), since they are both AVX instructions. Although, yes, I agree that this is not clear from Agner's report. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding. You are misunderstanding [no worries, happens to everyone = )]. The timings I listed were for

I'll respond to a few questions below. I'll start a new thread for GC discussion. On Oct 22, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: >> Now with regard to patching. I think llvm.patchpoint is generally useful for any type of patching I can imagine. It does look like a call site in IR, and it’s nice to be able to leverage calling conventions to inform

...tion* to turn off a set of > optimizations; not turn off optimizations in general. I would like to make > it easy for a compiler implementor to choose the desired behaviour. I > whole-heartedly believe that both behaviours (undefined and trap) have > merit. > I think you're both misconstruing what this would involve. You're actually asking for the formal model of the LLVM IR to be *parameterized*. In one mode, an instruction would produce undefined behavior on division, and in another mode it would produce a trap. Then you are asking for the optimizer stack to support either semant...

Mark, > Pawel, > You don't know me but I'm one of the release engineers for > BIND 9 and BIND 8 before that. I have been doing release engineering > for about 1.5 decades now. One of the things you DO NOT do is > replace a tarball. Machines get compromised. Good distributions > get replaced with tainted versions. One of the few ways the rest > of the world has

I was wondering why my CD ripping was producing short files from some tracks. A superficial examination of the code shows this piece of code in vorbis-tools/oggenc/encode.c: Line 120: /* Main encode loop - continue until end of file */ while(!eos) { [...] /* While we can get enough data from the library to analyse, one

Hey again, Thank you for your opinions. I will take them into consideration. A few comments... On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: ... > If the performance penalty is unclear to you, that means you haven't > measured it. Until you measure, you have absolutely no business > complaining about a potential performance problem. Measure,

Dear All, Historically, we *have* permitted job announcements for jobs that require or desire expertise with LLVM or one of it's sub-projects. To the best of my knowledge, we've never required that the position announcement state that the job will contribute directly to the LLVM project (or its sub-projects) or that the code created by the position be open source. As an example,

On September 17, 2001 01:31, you wrote: > So I've been doing some research and thinking here and there about what > a _good_ directory service for icecast would be like. I'd appreciate > some feedback and some discussion on this topic, before I start putting > a lot of effort into developing it. > > First off, I think getting rid of # of listeners is a must. It just

On 10/22/13 10:48 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > I'll respond to a few questions below. I'll start a new thread for GC > discussion. Good idea. Thanks. > > On Oct 22, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Philip R <listmail at philipreames.com > <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > >>> Now with regard to patching. I think llvm.patchpoint is generally

Hello everybody. I've been learning R for about a month to do a econometric study and now i'm stuck with some problems to make R do the things I want. Here I give the list of things I wanna do from the most simple to the more complex (for me of course): 1. Make a log. I've been using Stata and there i have a great tool to register what the program do: the log file, wich it's a

In some cases we do want to make the decision based on the target. For Hexagon, we don't support GDB anymore, only LLDB, so we always want LLDB tuning. The clang driver should have a way to specify that. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -----Original Message----- From:

Hey Michael, Thanks for the legwork! It appears that the stats you listed are for movaps [SSE], not vmovaps [AVX]. I would *assume* that vmovaps(m128) is closer to vmovaps(m256), since they are both AVX instructions. Although, yes, I agree that this is not clear from Agner's report. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding. As I am sure you are aware, we cannot use SSE (movaps)

...t;> optimizations; not turn off optimizations in general. I would like to make >> it easy for a compiler implementor to choose the desired behaviour. I >> whole-heartedly believe that both behaviours (undefined and trap) have >> merit. >> > > I think you're both misconstruing what this would involve. > > You're actually asking for the formal model of the LLVM IR to be > *parameterized*. In one mode, an instruction would produce undefined > behavior on division, and in another mode it would produce a trap. Then you > are asking for the optimizer stack...