search for: 20200305

...o una variable mas? Anexo un ejemplo. [image: image.png] muchas gracias -- *Andrés Hirigoyen* * Prof. Ciencias Biológicas* *Ing. Agr. Forestal (MSc) * ------------ próxima parte ------------ Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML... URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help-es/attachments/20200305/ffab45cc/attachment-0001.html> ------------ próxima parte ------------ A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 12228 bytes Desc: no disponible URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help-es/attachments/20200305/ffab45cc/attachment-0001.png>

Hello everyone, It took a bit longer than planned, but Release Candidate 3 is now here. It was tagged as llvmorg-10.0.0-rc3 on the release branch at 3a843031a5 and contains 95 commits since the previous release candidate. If no new problems arise, this is what the final release will look like. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/10.0.0/#rc3 and

...en-US/8eafe714-8a8c-44bc-9228-d6a68731494f/outlook-2013-behavior-as-an-imap-client I think nothing has been fixed as Outlook still does APPEND. Regards, Claudius -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20200305/7b6b8a00/attachment.html>

I have given up on using any spam training with Outlook because Outlook seems rebuild the mails when you touch them. What it broke here: * Received Headers reshuffled and useless * x-mailer set to outlook There are multiple bug reports about this and MS seems to have fixed it once in Outlook 2010 but broke it again sometime later. I would be careful not to spam-report yourself with those mails

...me you are using the latest version of MS Outlook. -- Gerard -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20200305/a4787b99/attachment.sig>

...d version is like beating a dead horse. Good luck. -- Jerry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20200305/e4b951b4/attachment-0001.sig>

A call to drm_simple_encoder_init() initializes an encoder without further functionality. It only provides the destroy callback to cleanup the encoder's state. Only few drivers implement more sophisticated encoders than that. Most drivers implement such a simple encoder and can use drm_simple_encoder_init() instead. The patchset converts drivers where the encoder's instance is embedded in

A call to drm_simple_encoder_init() initializes an encoder without further functionality. It only provides the destroy callback to cleanup the encoder's state. Only few drivers implement more sophisticated encoders than that. Most drivers implement such a simple encoder and can use drm_simple_encoder_init() instead. The patchset converts drivers where the encoder's instance is embedded in

I want to push a change to llvm-test-suite, but I don't know how and must be missing something really obvious here. This is what I did, and what I am getting: $ git clone https://<username>@github.com/llvm/llvm-test-suite.git $ git apply mypatch.diff $ git push origin master Password for 'https://<username>@github.com': remote: Permission to llvm/llvm-test-suite.git

I've found over time that R documentation that comes off as terse at first blush is usually revealed to be precise, concise, and complete on close reading.? I'm sure this is also true of `?findInterval`, but for whatever reason my brain simply refuses to extract meaning from it. Part of the problem may be that we interact with the function via a compressed form of the bounds of the

+cfe-dev as the discussion is now biased toward C standard. I'm not sure what problem you see here. In default mode, i.e. > when there is no "#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS on" in effect, > then the compiler can always assume that the default rounding > mode is in effect. Well, if #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS on is not in effect, that means > that the user has promised that at

Am 04.03.20 um 11:16 schrieb Dylan McKay: > > The new are of xmega3 architecture, which is already included. So this > should be simple. > > Where is the information about ISR-vector table, SRAM addresses and so > on stored? > > > At the moment, this is not implemented in LLVM; these details are left > to the frontend. Clang/compiler-rt does not

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 9:42 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 4, 2020, at 12:13, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 8:14 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> wrote: > >> Mehdi, Chris & others, >> >> I guess I did not express the main reasons for wanting to switch over

> > One concern with replacing llvm.rint and llvm.nearbyint with > llvm.roundeven makes it difficult to turn back into a libcall if the > backend doesn't have an instruction for it. You can't just call the > roundeven library function since that wouldn't exist in older libm > implementations. So ideally you would know which function was originally > used in the

Hi all, We’re planning to contribute a new implementation of LLD for Mach-O, using the same design as the COFF and ELF ports. This design has proven to work very well for those ports, and we’re keen to explore it for Mach-O as well. Our work is based on an initial prototype created by Peter Collingbourne and Rui Ueyama. Our initial commit is up for review at https://reviews.llvm.org/D75382.

On 02/06/2020 08:41 AM, Russell Gallop wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Thank you for setting this up. It's very useful. > > One question about what this builds. It only builds "ninja check-all", not "ninja all"[1]. check-all isn't a strict superset of all so while this covers most things, this does miss building a few things such as: > bin/clang-offload-wrapper

On 2020-03-04, Louis Dionne via llvm-dev wrote: > > >> On Mar 4, 2020, at 12:13, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 8:14 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com <mailto:ldionne at apple.com>> wrote: >> Mehdi, Chris & others, >> >> I guess I did not express the main reasons for

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 8:14 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> wrote: > Mehdi, Chris & others, > > I guess I did not express the main reasons for wanting to switch over very > well in my original message. > You original message was about “ commit attribution”, but now it is all about testing? Instead of jumping to a solution (pull-request) why not expressing the