search for: _against_

...ws, if someone motivated and smart wanted to do so". I don't have a legal copy of windows (and the MSVC++ version I have is more than a little out of date), so I can't do that port. I don't think Karl does any windows development either. So, in short: we don't have anything _against_ win32, and a port would be very welcome. However, we don't have the resources ourselves to implement that port. Mike --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ icecast project homepage: http://www.icecast.org/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'icecast-r...

Alright, well it's apparently no surprise to folks that ATA tag queuing is broken at the moment. Are there any objections to me adding a few cautious words to ata(4) and tuning(7) that advise _against_ the use of ata tag queuing given that they're likely the fastest way to reboot a -STABLE box? Here's a PR that I tacked a tad bit of info into: http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/42563 -sc -- Sean Chittenden

...t;> The biggest argument I have for staying with lazy is llvm JIT is >> not a light weight JIT. It's designed to do all the codegen >> optimizations a normal static compiler would do. Non-lazy JIT is >> too slow. > > Óscar used the cost of the JIT as an argument _against_ the lazy JIT. > Could you elaborate on why you think it's an argument in favor of lazy > JITting? > >> I'd prefer not to change the behavior. > > I'm guessing, based on your vagueness, that there are some internal > single-threaded Apple users who think that the...

...objected when I suggested that in the bug. > The biggest argument I have for staying with lazy is llvm JIT is not a light weight JIT. It's designed to do all the codegen optimizations a normal static compiler would do. Non-lazy JIT is too slow. Óscar used the cost of the JIT as an argument _against_ the lazy JIT. Could you elaborate on why you think it's an argument in favor of lazy JITting? > I'd prefer not to change the behavior. I'm guessing, based on your vagueness, that there are some internal single-threaded Apple users who think that the lazy JIT is the best performing...

...argument I have for staying with lazy is llvm JIT is not a >>>> light weight JIT. It's designed to do all the codegen optimizations a normal >>>> static compiler would do. Non-lazy JIT is too slow. >>> >>> Óscar used the cost of the JIT as an argument _against_ the lazy JIT. >>> Could you elaborate on why you think it's an argument in favor of lazy >>> JITting? >>> >>>> I'd prefer not to change the behavior. >>> >>> I'm guessing, based on your vagueness, that there are some internal &g...

...;> The biggest argument I have for staying with lazy is llvm JIT is not a >>> light weight JIT. It's designed to do all the codegen optimizations a normal >>> static compiler would do. Non-lazy JIT is too slow. >> >> Óscar used the cost of the JIT as an argument _against_ the lazy JIT. >> Could you elaborate on why you think it's an argument in favor of lazy >> JITting? >> >>> I'd prefer not to change the behavior. >> >> I'm guessing, based on your vagueness, that there are some internal >> single-threaded App...

...e for staying with lazy is llvm JIT is not a >>>>> light weight JIT. It's designed to do all the codegen optimizations a normal >>>>> static compiler would do. Non-lazy JIT is too slow. >>>> >>>> Óscar used the cost of the JIT as an argument _against_ the lazy JIT. >>>> Could you elaborate on why you think it's an argument in favor of lazy >>>> JITting? >>>> >>>>> I'd prefer not to change the behavior. >>>> >>>> I'm guessing, based on your vagueness, that ther...

After far too long under development and testing, this is to announce the release Ices 2.0.0. What is it? Ices is a source client for Icecast v2 streaming server. It takes audio from a stated input and (re)encodes the audio for streaming to icecast for listeners to pick up. <p>What's in this release? * stream Ogg Vorbis to one or more Icecast servers * allow for resampling, dowmixing

After far too long under development and testing, this is to announce the release Ices 2.0.0. What is it? Ices is a source client for Icecast v2 streaming server. It takes audio from a stated input and (re)encodes the audio for streaming to icecast for listeners to pick up. <p>What's in this release? * stream Ogg Vorbis to one or more Icecast servers * allow for resampling, dowmixing

I've setup nas4free (latest version 11.0.0.4, which has NUT 2.7.4) in a VM and configured it via webinterface to my APC UPS and set "shutdown mode" to "UPS goes on battery" with a timer of 30s. Then I started runtime calibration on the UPS and after 30s nas4free has shut down! I think this is not the correct behavior, since the status was "OB CAL". The system

...th lazy is llvm JIT is not a >>>>>> light weight JIT. It's designed to do all the codegen optimizations a normal >>>>>> static compiler would do. Non-lazy JIT is too slow. >>>>> >>>>> Óscar used the cost of the JIT as an argument _against_ the lazy JIT. >>>>> Could you elaborate on why you think it's an argument in favor of lazy >>>>> JITting? >>>>> >>>>>> I'd prefer not to change the behavior. >>>>> >>>>> I'm guessing, based on y...

greetings, since i have a test server in front of me and i have never tried it i request your assistance please. ive always been a fdisk and lilo person i have a fresh CentOS 4 "test" install on a WD120 sata /dev/sda /dev/sda1 / /dev/sda2 /boot /dev/sda3 swap and it just so happens i have a old test 17Gig Maxtor PATA with a fresh Win98 on it from helping my father migrate to a newer

Hi! I am very pleased with the progress that Ogg is making, expecially after I read the latest comparision tests on http://ff123.net/128test/instruct.html that put OGG on top aside with MPC. BUT the APPLAUD.WAV test case ( http://lame.sourceforge.net/download/samples/applaud.wav ) still produces **VERY** easily audible high-frequency artifacts when encoded with OGG RC3 up to q4.9 (!!!). Things

...IT is not a >>>>>> light weight JIT. It's designed to do all the codegen optimizations a normal >>>>>> static compiler would do. Non-lazy JIT is too slow. >>>>>> >>>>> Óscar used the cost of the JIT as an argument _against_ the lazy JIT. >>>>> Could you elaborate on why you think it's an argument in favor of lazy >>>>> JITting? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I'd prefer not to change the behavior. >>>>>>...

On Oct 28, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > From where I sit, this boils down to a very simple question (modulo > Chris's point): Either choice will surprise some users. Which surprise > is worse? Personally, I'd always prefer correct but slow behavior by > default, and explicitly enabling dangerous (but in some cases fast) > behavior. The behavior is only

.... It's designed to do all the codegen optimizations a >>>>>>> normal >>>>>>> static compiler would do. Non-lazy JIT is too slow. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Óscar used the cost of the JIT as an argument _against_ the lazy JIT. >>>>>> Could you elaborate on why you think it's an argument in favor of lazy >>>>>> JITting? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd prefer not to change the behavior....

For "include/uapi/*", excluding "linux/" sub-directory, let all files' macro prefix match the standard format, and give related stand comments for their macro suffix. The related standard format is: "_SUBDIRNAME_SUBDIRNAME[_SUBDIRNAME]_FILENAME" (1st _SUBDIRNAME is _UAPI), and use '_' instead of '.' and '-'. Signed-off-by: Chen Gang

For "include/uapi/*", excluding "linux/" sub-directory, let all files' macro prefix match the standard format, and give related stand comments for their macro suffix. The related standard format is: "_SUBDIRNAME_SUBDIRNAME[_SUBDIRNAME]_FILENAME" (1st _SUBDIRNAME is _UAPI), and use '_' instead of '.' and '-'. Signed-off-by: Chen Gang

For "include/uapi/*", excluding "linux/" sub-directory, let all files' macro prefix match the standard format, and give related stand comments for their macro suffix. The related standard format is: "_SUBDIRNAME_SUBDIRNAME[_SUBDIRNAME]_FILENAME" (1st _SUBDIRNAME is _UAPI), and use '_' instead of '.' and '-'. Signed-off-by: Chen Gang