search for: conservat

...ervers based on CentOS (still have a couple old ones), but the direction the RedHat world is going, is just deviating too much from mainstream Linux. About 4 years ago, I started to migrate servers to Debian, or install new ones for different purposes. IMHO Debian is middle ground between ultra conservatism (RedHat previously, now quirkiness), and bleeding edge (Archlinux). I have also tried to upgrade Samba in the CentOS boxes on several occasions (building from sources), but it's not worth the trouble. The amount of work is just too much. It doesn't make sense. I hope this informatio...

...e: * why "[.default"(x, i) doesn't work if dim(x) is 2? After all a single subscript into a vector works regardless of whether it's a matrix or not. Is there an alternative way to access "[.default"? * why does unclass() make deep copy? This is a facet of the global over-conservatism of R with respect to copying. * is it possible to add some sort copy profiling to R? Something like copyProfiling(TRUE), which should cause R to log sizes of each copied object (just raw sizes w/o any attempt to identify the object). This feature should at least help assess the magnitude of the...

I'm current facing an issue related to AliasSetTracker/LICM: the transitive closure of the alias sets is materially more conservative than individual aliasing queries and this conservatism leads to generally worse optimization in LICM. For instance, consider this module: declare i32 @only_reads() readonly declare void @escape(i32*, i32*, i32*) define void @f(i32 %count) { entry: %a = alloca i32 %b = alloca i32 %c = a...

On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 09:35 -0700, Warren Young wrote: > Once a thing becomes reliable, it stops being technology. Oh No. Just because something works well it does not stop being "technology" unless the USA people, who have decimated my language (English), have a new definition for "technology". Warren are you serious that things that do not work well are

...loc) an optimizer can exploit the known behavior of the function. I disagree. In the malloc() case, the known behavior is side effecting. In the general case, the compiler cannot assume side-effect freedom unless it can prove it, and in the absence of implementation knowledge the standard requires conservatism. > The same concept exists in C++, and we often refer to it as the "as > if" rule; i.e., implementations can do all kinds of things, as long as > the effect is "as if" specified by the abstract machine. Yes. But the C++ version of this is quite different, becau...

Hi, Running samba 4.10.16 on CentOS7. It's a fileserver but with a split personality. For everything UNIX authentication is NIS (I know ;-) but for samba we authenticate to AD and all users have the same uidNumber & gidNumber as they do in NIS. This has been working fine but now I have some users who suddenly lose write access to their files, sometimes. One user has 2 workstations (1

So here is it as txt file. It is funny that a R file is restricted in R-devel mailing list. Anyhow, in this case R-core have a few choices here: * ignore my solution * show that it is actually bad or worse * consider adding it Considering, that it is a minor change from previous version and doesn't bother the existing usage, I saw the necessity to submit it here. But newer solution

> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 4:02 PM > To: Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Extending shufflevector for vscale vectors > (SVE etc.) > > On Jan 29, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Eli Friedman via

...ops, and I expect a number of awesome new adaptors to paper over the Module::global_begin() sorts of ranges. It would also be great to get something like python's enumerate function etc. In short, you don't have to convince me about the benefits of dropping old compilers! :-) At root, my conservatism comes from not wanting to hurt adoption of LLVM. The hosts that I specifically care about are not the problem here, they are windows and GCC users, and I am certainly not the expert on either of them, but it is pretty obvious that LLVM is used by folks outside the core development group, and ma...

Hello, I'm playing with alias analysis, using the following program: %i = external global int ; <int*> [#uses=2] implementation ; Functions: int %_Z3bari(int %p) { entry: %tmp.0 = load int* %i ; <int> [#uses=1] %tmp.1 = setgt int %tmp.0, 10 ; <bool> [#uses=1] br bool %tmp.1, label %then, label %UnifiedReturnBlock then:

On Apr 30, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > Daveed: > > Perhaps I am looking at the wrong version of the specification. > Section > 5.1.2.3 appears to refer to objects having volatile-qualified type. > The > type of malloc() is not volatile qualified in the standard library > definition. More importantly, malloc() is not specified to access a volatile

Daveed: Perhaps I am looking at the wrong version of the specification. Section 5.1.2.3 appears to refer to objects having volatile-qualified type. The type of malloc() is not volatile qualified in the standard library definition. In general, calls to procedures that are outside the current unit of compilation are presumed to involve side effects performed in the body of the external procedure

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote:> Concrete long term proposal: > > > > We support building with C++ toolchains which were released and widely > available on their respective target platforms at least 2 years prior to > the next

...''ll never get out - but Rails would be perfect for a lot of my projects. I''m anticipating some skepticism here. A while back someone tried to push for ColdFusion and got shut down... obviously I think Rails is better (not to mention cheaper), but there''s definitely some conservatism going on. So, I''m appealing to the community... what are my strongest arguments here, the ones that the execs will find most compelling? Has this worked for anyone else, and if so, how? How do I get RoR to be officially adopted? Help me build my case... I''m going to take t...

...of the function. > > I disagree. In the malloc() case, the known behavior is side > effecting. See above. > > In the general case, the compiler cannot assume side-effect freedom > unless it can prove it, and in the absence of implementation knowledge > the standard requires conservatism. Except for the leeway offered by 5.1.2.3/3. This is no different from not requiring that an actual store operation happen in something like: void f(int x) { x = 3; } >> The same concept exists in C++, and we often refer to it as the "as >> if" rule; i.e., implemen...

...n launchd instead of systemd, with no differences relative to the version shipped in the contemporaneous version of Mac OS X? I?m uncertain as to whether the opposition would have been as great, but I?m dead certain the opposition would have been vociferous and strident, because Linux, though less conservative than the BSDs, is much more conservative than macOS. The systemd vs launchd vs sysvinit vs whatever-else arguments are more about human factors than about technology, even though they?re usually couched as technical battles. > When people go to Mac they accept what it is (mostly). I doubt...

Definitely 2 camps on this issue; so why not compromise with a drop-down menu for the most frequently used processes, the user responds with the necessary parameters for his choice, and R then writes the source statements on the terminal and executes them. The user follows the familiar gui procedure, is thereby automatically introduced to the command statements involved, and R's

...instead of systemd, with no differences relative to the version shipped in the contemporaneous version of Mac OS X? > > I?m uncertain as to whether the opposition would have been as great, but I?m dead certain the opposition would have been vociferous and strident, because Linux, though less conservative than the BSDs, is much more conservative than macOS. > > The systemd vs launchd vs sysvinit vs whatever-else arguments are more about human factors than about technology, even though they?re usually couched as technical battles. > >> When people go to Mac they accept what it is...

...> systemd, not merely objections to change with no deeper reason. While there certainly are objective problems with systemd?s design and implementation, it is basic human psychology that many people will not move to a newer system despite piles of advantages. The major BSDs are fundamentally conservative at the project management level, so I believe this tendency is stronger in the BSD user population than elsewhere in the IT world. It?s a form of self-selection bias: the BSDs are run conservatively, so they attract a user base that is also technologically conservative, from which come the next...

...rom shuffle vector to the ‘fixed’ formats, but doing that > would > >> probably introduce a bunch of regressions for various targets. > > > > I'm thinking that we don't use the new named shuffles for fixed-width > shuffles at the IR level. > > Is this out of conservatism because of the amount of existing code that > works on ShuffleVector? While variable length vectors will always be special > in some ways, it seems useful to make their representation as consistent > with static length vectors as possible. > > Represent even fixed length shuffles...