search for: argued

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Lawrence, Peter <c_plawre at qca.qualcomm.com > wrote: > Daniel, > > What am I missing in the following chain of logic: > > > > As far as constant-prop, value-prop, range-prop, and general > property-propagation, > > > > 1. the compiler/optimizer **has** to get it right for if-then-else and > while-do or

Hey all, This mail has been a long time in coming, but with the upcoming expiration of security support for Xen 4.8, it's time to start thinking about what our update policy will be for the Xen packages in general. Citrix is committed to officially supporting one Xen version at a time through the CentOS Virt SIG. (Others in the community are welcome to support others.) But we'd like

Hal, To simplify this discussion, lets first just focus on code without asserts and assumes, I don’t follow your logic, you seem to be implying we don’t optimize property-propagation through “if-then” and “while-do” well ? --Peter. From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:12 AM To: Lawrence, Peter <c_plawre at qca.qualcomm.com> Cc: llvm-dev

> -----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

On 1 July 2015 at 11:34, 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.

On Thursday 05 May 2016 17:16:17 Valeri 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

Duncan Sands wrote: >> As noted in the GEP FAQ, GEPs don't support variable-length arrays; > > that's not quite right. The problem is only with arrays of variable length > arrays, and more generally with arrays where the element type has variable > size (this occurs with Ada, which has all kinds of funky variable sized types, > for example). You're right, though

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 this principle? Meanwhile, to avoid substitute(),

> > >> 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 used for

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> Thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi Preston, >>> As noted in the GEP FAQ, GEPs don't support variable-length arrays; >> >> that's not quite right. The problem is only with arrays of variable length >> arrays, and more generally with arrays where the element type has variable >> size (this occurs with Ada, which has all kinds of funky variable sized types, >> for example). > >

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:

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > I agree the top priority 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,

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, I would like to make a

Ok, so I''m obviously doing something wrong here. This is running puppet 0.22.2 on a centos 4 update 4 box. When I try running this test - mount { bigdisk: ensure => mounted, device => ''bigserver:/bigdisk'', fstype => nfs, name => ''/bigdisk'', dump => "0", pass => "0", options =>

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

Yo All! Well I work on a diverse number of OS's with a diverse number of clients. Some use F-Secure, SecureCRT, PuTTY, SSH.COM. OpenSSH, etc. with a wide variety of versions between each, some from source, some from rpms, etc... Basically a lot of legacy stuff that no one has the time to update. In fact I am working on a couple of OpenSSH config problems in the last few days. Sometimes we

...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 Language, LCPC 2007). --Vikram Professor, C...