search for: counterargu

...and add the Freescale hypervisor management > > driver. > > It can't go in linux/virt or linux/virt/fsl instead? why drivers/ ? > > or maybe linux/virt should be drivers/virt ? See discussion for v2 of this patch. I suggested that drivers/firmware and virt/ as options, the counterarguments were that drivers/firmware is for passive firmware as opposed to firmware that acts as a hypervisor, and that virt/ is for the host side of hypervisors like kvm, not for guests. The driver in here most closely resembles the xen dom0 model, where a priviledged guest controls other guests, but...

...and add the Freescale hypervisor management > > driver. > > It can't go in linux/virt or linux/virt/fsl instead? why drivers/ ? > > or maybe linux/virt should be drivers/virt ? See discussion for v2 of this patch. I suggested that drivers/firmware and virt/ as options, the counterarguments were that drivers/firmware is for passive firmware as opposed to firmware that acts as a hypervisor, and that virt/ is for the host side of hypervisors like kvm, not for guests. The driver in here most closely resembles the xen dom0 model, where a priviledged guest controls other guests, but...

...ith code like `if(path == "") stop(?Path not found?)`), but I now use mustWork=TRUE or fs::path_package(), which errors by default. What are the general thoughts on this issue? I would love to see mustWork=TRUE become the default in future versions of R, but I would be happy to hear any counterarguments (or support!) for this suggestion. Cheers, Irene Steves [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

...#39; is used. > > > > Should we have a coding standard for this? What's the preferred direction > > here? Seems not having 'virtual' is less overall text, but not sure how > > others feel. > > My vote: omit virtual if override is used. > > (legitimate counterargument: harder to skim/match/read whether a > function is virtual when it's not specified and "override" appears > much later in the declaration) > One counter-datapoint: Personally, I have on at least one occasion caught myself not noticing a leading `virtual` and thinking tha...

While doing the conversion of LLVM_OVERRIDE to 'override' last night, I noticed that the code base is rather inconsistent on whether the 'virtual' keyword is also used when 'override' is used. Should we have a coding standard for this? What's the preferred direction here? Seems not having 'virtual' is less overall text, but not sure how others feel. Related,

> On 23 Jul 2017, at 12:19, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 08:48:00AM +0000, Musa, Ayman via llvm-dev wrote: >> 3- Give up on the auto-generation idea and manually update the current tables iteratively with new chunks of instructions until full state is achieved. >> >> P.s. The TableGen backend

...." (E.g., Wikipedia, "Copyright law of the United States", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States") Very few if any refereed academic papers are written for financial gain: Lawrence Lessig said that congressional representatives rarely hear counterarguments to the garbage they get from corporate lobbyists. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP, and probably also the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) will strengthen the rights of corporations in this area. If you think that will limit the progress of science and the useful arts, a...

...the preferred direction >>> here? Seems not having 'virtual' is less overall text, but not sure how >>> others feel. >> >> My vote: omit virtual if override is used. > > +1: virtual doesn’t add anything if override is present. > >> (legitimate counterargument: harder to skim/match/read whether a >> function is virtual when it's not specified and "override" appears >> much later in the declaration) >> >> One counter-datapoint: Personally, I have on at least one occasion caught myself not noticing a leading `virt...

...e I would be surprised if this added much > impact. Note that I personally often write my tests to use temporary files > instead of pipes anyway just because I like how the RUN lines look, so its > not exactly like we aren't already storing many of these files. Fair enough. Eli - any counterargument/other views on this issue? (since you'd mentioned some concern previously) > There would be some code simplification advantages internally to lit too if > it avoided actually using pipes, although I'm not sure I want to go as far > as dropping that support. > > If it is...

> On Apr 1, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 01/04/2016 6:46 PM, Bert Gunter wrote: >> ... of course, whether one **should** get them is questionable... > > They're just statistics. How could it hurt to look at them? Like Rolf, I thought that this utterance on April 1 deserved fortune enshrinement. It reminded me of one

Warren Young wrote: > On May 10, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> > wrote: >> On Tue, May 10, 2016 3:57 pm, Liam O'Toole wrote: >>> On 2016-05-10, Valeri Galtsev >>> <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >>>> <snip> >> Yes, LTS, thanks Liam. Only LTS has life cycle of mere 2 years, whereas >>

...d they'll go to 7 > probably when they're surplused replaced. Yes, and?? Just because you have one use case where a major version upgrade does not make sense does not mean that major version upgrades don?t make sense everywhere. I already covered that case in my previous post, and the counterargument remains the same: not all OS upgrades can be coupled with hardware upgrades. VMs are only one reason, though a big one. As for all the rest of your post, yes, I get it: nothing should ever change, nothing should ever break. You just go and live live that dream. Meanwhile, in my world, chang...

...t amt is loop invariant } "32 - b" is loop-invariant and gets hoisted, and what's left of the expression doesn't match a known "rotate" pattern (since the DAG can't see across BB boundaries at the moment), so instead we get two shifts and an OR inside the loop. The counterargument here was that GlobalISel should eventually fix this particular problem, but nevertheless, as of today, LICM breaks recognition of the rotate pattern in this (very simple) loop, and there is reason to believe that other transforms (existing or forthcoming) might well break the pattern as well; t...

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:59 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > > Note that as far as places to put temporary files, the right place to put > > them is alongside the other test outputs in the test output "sandbox" > > directory. > > > > Somewhat

...t; "32 - b" is loop-invariant and gets hoisted, and what's left of the > expression doesn't match a known "rotate" pattern (since the DAG can't see > across BB boundaries at the moment), so instead we get two shifts and an OR > inside the loop. > > The counterargument here was that GlobalISel should eventually fix this > particular problem, but nevertheless, as of today, LICM breaks recognition > of the rotate pattern in this (very simple) loop, and there is reason to > believe that other transforms (existing or forthcoming) might well break > th...

On 15 Apr 2013, at 16:03, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > See http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6210. Chris is correct at the coarse granularity, but there are some trades to be made at the fine. There is some interesting work from MIT in the context of image processing kernels related to the relative costs of saving intermediates out to cache or DRAM vs recomputing them

I've read the back and forth this morning, and I have to side with Vince. 1. Functions that re-interpret their arguments are very dangerous. The original question involved a well formed call to a function, which returned the wrong answer. Bug, design flaw, whatever -- it's a mistake and the best choice would be to fix it. I only consider such behavior in 2 cases: a. when the

As nobody seems to answer my request, I simply post it again. Is there any reason why the r-help-mailinglist should not be converted to a newsgroup? These were the advantages of a newsgroup I mentioned earlier: -) you can easily search the archives -) the discussion is faster (I experience that the R-mailinglist has a lag of about 1 to 2 hours (not for everyone!!!). When I ask a question, I get

On 2018-08-22 11:32, John McCall wrote: > >> On Aug 22, 2018, at 4:38 AM, Bevin Hansson <bevin.hansson at ericsson.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2018-08-22 05:56, John McCall via llvm-dev wrote: >>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 6:20 PM, Leonard Chan <leonardchan at google.com> wrote: >>>> If we were to create a new type down the line, I