search for: argu

...en logic > early on in the compilation > > > > 3. “assume” should also take advantage of this the same way. (generate a > call to “pseudoabort” which > > At some late stage gets deleted) > This would fix precisely nothing, because of the above. > > > Sanjoy’s argument is faulty, if it were true we would also find our > handling of “assert” to be unacceptable > > but this is not the case, no one is arguing that we need to re-design > “assert”. > Asserts occur much more often than assumes, it may or may not be sensible to handle them the same w...

...time through the CentOS Virt SIG. (Others in the community are welcome to support others.) But we'd like input as to which version the community would like to be supported at any one time. Please express your opinion on each option by replying as follows: -2: This is a bad idea, and I would argue against this -1: I'm not happy with this, but I wouldn't argue against this. 0: No opinion. 1: I'm happy with this, but I wouldn't argue for it. 2: This is a great idea, and I'd argue for it. There are several possible options: 1. Always support the newest option. This means...

...ert” takes advantage of this by being translated into if-then logic early on in the compilation 3. “assume” should also take advantage of this the same way. (generate a call to “pseudoabort” which At some late stage gets deleted) This would fix precisely nothing, because of the above. Sanjoy’s argument is faulty, if it were true we would also find our handling of “assert” to be unacceptable but this is not the case, no one is arguing that we need to re-design “assert” Sure, but no one should make this argument anyway: assert is not for optimization. In fact, we don't really want it to be...

> -----Original Message----- > From: Brian J. Murrell [mailto:brian@interlinx.bc.ca] > > - Single Sign-On via Kerberos > > OK. Actually I understood this feature. I am just wondering how it > applies in an MS network. SSO to all of what? If my DCs are my > file/printer server(s) (let's say I mirror the data contents > of my PDC to > my BDC as well --

What he said :) It also, representationally, has a related issue our current assume does in terms of figuring out the set of assumptions applied. Given an instruction, in extended SSA, because " assume" produces a value used by things, it's trivial to find the chain of assumptions you can use for it. In a straight control flow representation, it requires finding which side of the

...34, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote: > Why do you say spin? You're dismissing all use-cases other than this very narrow one I'd (with my own spin) characterise as "Do What I Mean, I Can't Be Bothered To Get My Code Right". Fair enough, you're arguing in favour of a point; but it's not one I agree with. Tim.

...ri Galtsev wrote: > There were several heated discussions on this list, and elsewhere. This is > not intended to start the new one, but to help someone who missed them to > define their statute. > > People split into two groups: > > Opponents of systemd (, firewqalld, etc.) who argue that from formerly > Unix-like system Linux becomes Unix-unlike (or more MS Windows-like), and > this is bad. > > Proponents of systemd etc. who argue that the life goes on, systems evolve > and you better keep up with changes. > > Therefore, for new person who is about to, le...

...m] = 0; * >>    } > > > This is where you run into trouble, because this is an array with a variable > sized element type. > > Currently GEP is designed so that the offset from the base pointer is an affine > function *with constant multipliers*, eg: 3*x + 10*y. I merely argue for allowing constant-but-unknown multipliers, i.e., parameters. They're still affine for purposes of dependence analysis (by things like the Delta test or Polly), but oh so much more useful. Multi-dimensional VLAs happen, especially in scientific code. How are we going to express DGEMM (matr...

Hey folks, A lot of confusion has been caused by having stop-words filtered by the default analyzer. There have been a few suggestions to remove this feature so I thought I''d put it to a vote. Making this change would not be backwards compatible and would require users to either rebuild their indexes or change their code to keep the same stop-words settings. However, it would save a lot

Thanks Simon, Now, I see better your argument. Le 16/04/2020 ? 22:48, Simon Urbanek a ?crit?: > ... I'm not arguing against the principle, I'm arguing about your > particular proposal as it is inconsistent and not general. This sounds promising for me. May be in a (new?) future, R core will come with a correct proposal for...

> > >> Sanjoy’s argument is faulty, if it were true we would also find our >> handling of “assert” to be unacceptable >> >> but this is not the case, no one is arguing that we need to re-design >> “assert” >> > Sure, but no one should make this argument anyway: assert is not for > op...

I argue we should spell C++ lambdas (and other function-like variables) like functions, not like variables. - Use verbs, not nouns. - Use lowerCamelCase. Here's a patch that implements the change to the coding standards: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48991 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D48991> Though...

...> >> This is where you run into trouble, because this is an array with a variable >> sized element type. >> >> Currently GEP is designed so that the offset from the base pointer is an affine >> function *with constant multipliers*, eg: 3*x + 10*y. > > I merely argue for allowing constant-but-unknown multipliers, i.e., > parameters. They're still affine for purposes of dependence analysis > (by things like the Delta test or Polly), but oh so much more useful. > > Multi-dimensional VLAs happen, especially in scientific code. How are > we goin...

I actually move the default *.repo files and replace them with "". The thing is that Katello turns all the downloaded yum content into a single redhat.repo file and I don't have to install any more *-release-* rpms any more. I would argue that I should not need to install any *-release-* rpms at all to get all the required software. On 03/22/2017 09:34 AM, -=X.L.O.R.D=- wrote: > Maybe you just don't need to remove anything at all but just move them to > another folder that does the same goal. > For *-release-*.rpm,...

...y should always be "getting it right”. But I can’t > agree with this thinking completely. This has to be balanced with > pragmatism. If we completely disregard the practical concerns of commercial > use, it makes LLVM hostile towards an important group of users. Clearly, I can't argue with that. =] We benefit from it as well. And I don't think I'm arguing against a pragmatic approach in this case, although I'm sorry if it comes off that way. Just so we're on the same page, the only real question in my mind is: can we make breaking changes as we iterate on the d...

Simon, Thanks for replying. In what follows I won't try to argue (I understood that you find this a bad idea) but I would like to make clearer some of your point for me (and may be for others). Le 16/04/2020 ? 16:48, Simon Urbanek a ?crit?: > Serguei, >> On 17/04/2020, at 2:24 AM, Sokol Serguei <sokol at insa-toulouse.fr> >> wrote: Hi,...

...t;0", pass => "0", options => ''rw,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,defaults'', } Yet, when I run it: bash-3.00$ sudo puppet --noop --verbose ./work.pp notice: //Mount[pdprojects]/ensure: is absent, should be mounted (noop) err: Got an uncaught exception of type ArgumentError: Field ''dump'' is required I assume this is a usage error, but I can''t find out why. Any takers? Thanks, --mac

On 09/09/2016 04:31 PM, Stephen Canon wrote: > Gating this on -Owhatever is dangerous, . We should simply default to the pragma “on” state universally. Why so? [honestly asking, not arguing] My guess: b/c we don`t want programs to give different results when compiled at different "-O<...>" settings with the exception of "-Ofast". At any rate, the above change is trivial to apply to my recent proposed patch: just remove the "&& (Res.getCode...

...and DSA keys and do it from scripts. Having -1 and -2 would make life a lot easier, if only for testing purposes. Even a "-o [option]" with scp would be nice. A lot of these different products only interoperate in certain modes so I have to try a lot of things. I would also like to argue for more orthogonality between sch, ssh and sshd. Why do you turn on verbosity and debugging with "-v" in scp and ssh, but use "-d" with sshd? Why do you select a port with scp and sshd with "-P port" but with "-p port" on sshd? My poor little brain h...

...ies" like Intel's TBB should be supported, too: they have a (reasonably) well-defined semantics, just like languages do, and are become widely used. I also do not think LLVM metadata is the way to represent the primitives, because they are simply too fragile. But you don't have to argue that one with me :-), others have argued this already. You really need more first class, language-neutral, LLVM mechanisms for parallelism. I'm not pretending I know how to do this, though there are papers on the subject, including one from an Intel team (Pillar: A Parallel Implementation La...