search for: ballots

...I''m creating a simple voting app: any user can create a survey, with any number of questions, and other users can then vote by creating a ballot for that survey. Here''s the modeling: class Survey < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :questions has_many :eligibilities has_many :ballots accepts_nested_attributes_for :questions, :allow_destroy => true attr_accessible :title, :description, :status, :deadline, :questions_attributes def owner Person.find(owner_id) end end class Question < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :survey has_many :preferences end cl...

...t; ballot(); > } while (... /* non-uniform */); > } > > and vice versa? Note that there's no duplication going on here, and > the single-threaded flow of control is exactly the same. > > Another reason this isn't so great is that it prevents e.g. CSE on > ballots that actually should be combined, since you're modelling it as > a write. It seems like the optimizer is going to need some special > knowledge of convergent things that fake memory constraints can't give > us. > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:06 PM Jan Sjodin <jan_sjodin at...

...threadID % 2 != 0, but I see the issue. Using the equivalence classes would > prevent this transform, since we have re-arranged the control flow in that way, What do you mean? Note that the transforms that lead from the first example to the second are actually desirable if there aren't any ballots or other convergent operations, so banning them entirely is a no-go. Otherwise, note that the ballot here can be nested arbitrarily deep, which means that jump forwarding/tail duplication has to be aware of the entire loop unless we have some kind of merge intrinsic. Also, I should say that while...

...nce > classes would > > > prevent this transform, since we have re-arranged the control flow in > that way, > > > > What do you mean? Note that the transforms that lead from the first > > example to the second are actually desirable if there aren't any > > ballots or other convergent operations, so banning them entirely is a > > no-go. Otherwise, note that the ballot here can be nested arbitrarily > > deep, which means that jump forwarding/tail duplication has to be > > aware of the entire loop unless we have some kind of merge intrinsic. &...

...nce > classes would > > > prevent this transform, since we have re-arranged the control flow in > that way, > > > > What do you mean? Note that the transforms that lead from the first > > example to the second are actually desirable if there aren't any > > ballots or other convergent operations, so banning them entirely is a > > no-go. Otherwise, note that the ballot here can be nested arbitrarily > > deep, which means that jump forwarding/tail duplication has to be > > aware of the entire loop unless we have some kind of merge intrinsic. &...

...nce > classes would > > > prevent this transform, since we have re-arranged the control flow in > that way, > > > > What do you mean? Note that the transforms that lead from the first > > example to the second are actually desirable if there aren't any > > ballots or other convergent operations, so banning them entirely is a > > no-go. Otherwise, note that the ballot here can be nested arbitrarily > > deep, which means that jump forwarding/tail duplication has to be > > aware of the entire loop unless we have some kind of merge intrinsic. &...

...gt;  the CFG (and maybe consider the target) to know where to insert the >> >  intrinsics. > >> But the same is true for basically any approach to handling this. In >> fact, adding the merge intrinsics makes this much easier. Beyond the >> usual problems with hoisting ballots, which passes currently avoid via >> the current convergent + speculatable attributes, we'd only have to >> add awareness to passes that they can't duplicate/combine merge >> intrinsics or move them past convergent intrinsics, which is a local >> property and hence e...

...continue; } into for (...) { do { ballot(); } while (... /* non-uniform */); } and vice versa? Note that there's no duplication going on here, and the single-threaded flow of control is exactly the same. Another reason this isn't so great is that it prevents e.g. CSE on ballots that actually should be combined, since you're modelling it as a write. It seems like the optimizer is going to need some special knowledge of convergent things that fake memory constraints can't give us. On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:06 PM Jan Sjodin <jan_sjodin at yahoo.com> wrote: &gt...

...edecessor that can't be eliminated. For example, in the single-break case mentioned earlier: while (true) { if (...) { ballot(); // should be executed before re-converging. break; } } ballot(); // should be executed after re-converging With a merge instruction, the two ballots could be in the same basic block, with a merge instruction separating them, versus two basic blocks with the second marked as a merge block. Of course, this does have the disadvantage that the backend would have to duplicate any convergent operations before the merge instruction/intrinsic if the bl...

On 20.12.18 18:03, Connor Abbott wrote: > We already have the notion of "convergent" functions like > syncthreads(), to which we cannot add control-flow dependencies. > That is, it's legal to hoist syncthreads out of an "if", but it's > not legal to sink it into an "if".  It's not clear to me why we > can't have

Hi all, LLVM needs a solution to the long-standing problem that the IR is unable to express certain semantics expected by high-level programming languages that target GPUs. Solving this issue is necessary both for upstream use of LLVM as a compiler backend for GPUs and for correctly supporting LLVM IR <-> SPIR-V roundtrip translation. It may also be useful for compilers targeting

When I do remote form submits through jQuery .submit() why do I sometimes have to refresh the page manually to see the results? My jQuery handler is very simple: $("#vote_yes").click(function() { $("#approval").val(true) $(".edit_vote").submit() }); And the link that leverages this bit of code is as follows: <%= link_to("Vote

The preliminary round voting is completed in the "2005 Readers' Choice Awards" at Linux Journal. CentOS was nominated in the "distribution:" category along with 18 other Linux distros ... and we finished in the top 3 (along with Ubuntu and FedoraCore). Thanks to every one who voted for CentOS. I really did not expect that we would be on the final ballot, though I am

Does anyone know if there is a Smartnet contract or whatnot available from Cisco for access to the latest 7920 images? I've got one w/ asterisk that is exhibiting a few of the documented bugs running 1.0.3 (1.0.7 is the latest IIRC). Thanks! -- /* Ian A. Underwood - agentgrn@dcne.net - http://www.agentgreen.org There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot,

Greetings people; The section of drakeconf that pclos uses has two problems. First is several screens full of complaints about deprecated syntax in "/etc/udev/rules.d/70-nut-usbups.rules" at each reboot. So I pulled the current 2.5 svn trunk, then found I was missing quite a few build tools needed here that aren't used when building a kernel, currently running a 32 bit

gene heskett <gheskett at shentel.net> writes: > Which file in the nut I pulled a month ago, should I start with to get > the new version actually running? I still get - -V=2.7.4 It is likely that you have built new nut but old nut is still on your system. I do a 'sudo make install' to write over the distribution nut (on NetBSD/pkgsrc, surely not what you are using).

On Monday 22 June 2020 09:50:50 Larry Fahnoe wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:27 AM Gene Heskett <gheskett at shentel.net> wrote: > > > On Jun 22, 2020, at 8:52 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > pi at rpi4:~ $ upscmd myups *test.battery.start.quick* > > > > Username (pi): > > > > Password: > > > > Unexpected response from upsd:

Hi Jean-Marc, Alfred and Greg, Are you receiving the mails from IETF about draft-ietf-avt-rtp-speex The mails are not coming from AVT mailing list, but I think we are all 3 part of a minimal list (draft-ietf-avt-rtp-speex at tools.ietf.org) dedicated to latest discussion about the draft. I have answered some questions, but there are small changes and adaptation still required to the ietf

But /etc/nut/upsmon.conf has the correct username and password. returns: gene at coyote:/usr/share/doc/nut-doc/pdf$ upsmon myups at localhost Network UPS Tools upsmon 2.6.4 kill: Operation not permitted /etc/nut/upsmon.conf line 75: invalid directive [*****] /etc/nut/upsmon.conf line 76: invalid directive password = ************** /etc/nut/upsmon.conf line 77: invalid directive upsmon master UPS:

Greetings Jim & friends; Just installed nut 2.7.4 on a debian bullseye system. ups is: Bus 001 Device 006: ID 051d:0003 American Power Conversion UPS Device Descriptor: bLength 18 bDescriptorType 1 bcdUSB 2.00 bDeviceClass 0 bDeviceSubClass 0 bDeviceProtocol 0 bMaxPacketSize0 64 idVendor