search for: counterexamples

----- Forwarded message from "John T. Guthrie" <guthrie@counterexample.org> ----- From: "John T. Guthrie" <guthrie@counterexample.org> Subject: Comment on a web page Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:20:06 -0400 To: webmaster@samba.org To Whom It May Concern, I was just looking at your Samba Printing Support Page: http://us1.samba.org/samba/docs/man/printer_driver2.html

Hi, We just published our work that uses LLVM for software verification: Counterexample-Guided Bit-Precision Selection Shaobo He, Zvonimir Rakamaric Proceedings of the 15th Asian Symposium on Programming Languages and Systems (APLAS), November 2017. Link: http://soarlab.org/2017/09/aplas2017-hr/ I would appreciate if someone could add it to your publication list. Thanks! -- Zvonimir --

On 11/29/17 7:42 PM, Zvonimir Rakamaric via llvm-dev wrote: > Counterexample-Guided Bit-Precision Selection I've added this publication to the publication list. Please let me know if I need to make any corrections. Regards, John Criswell -- John Criswell Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/criswell

Hello all, When I try to add a user to my secrets.tdb file on my Samba 3.2.0 PDC, the users are always added under the local machine domain, not the global domain. That is, if my PDC machine name is srv1, and it is PDC for the domain DOM1, then whenever I add a user using "pdbedit -a -u username", then that user gets placed under the local domain SRV1, not the global domain DOM1. So my

Dear list, I'm using the function "movie3d" in the package "rgl" to create a .gif animation of a 3d graphic. The program "ImageMagik" is working properly, R packages are working, basic examples available in the manual also working fine. Problem Solved: when I tried to create more complex movies, i.e. combining different views and zooming, the R-console crashed

Martin In terms of context of the actual problem, sapply is called millions of times because the work involves scoring individual students who took a test. A score for student A is generated and then student B and such and there are millions of students. The psychometric process of scoring students is complex and our code makes use of sapply many times for each student. The toy example used

While working with sapply, the documentation states that the simplify argument will yield a vector, matrix etc "when possible". I was curious how the code actually defined "as possible" and see this within the function if (!identical(simplify, FALSE) && length(answer)) This seems superfluous to me, in particular this part: !identical(simplify, FALSE) The preceding

On May 10, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Benoit Boissinot wrote: > To me it looks like any basic block from the loop body with a > successor not in the loop body is a BB "building the condition" (an > "exit" block). I assume you mean "any basic block from the loop header". I don't think your rule will work. Consider this counterexample: while (j < 10

Hello, Various HDMI versions enable higher and higher pixel clocks. However individual GPUs are not required to support the maximum pixel clock supported by the spec in order to be compliant. It appears that some GPUs max out at 225MHz while others at 297MHz (while others still, I assume, are limited to 165MHz, esp among the older ones). We've been unable to find this in the VBIOS (I had a

...ord size The named file seems to be deleted as soon as corruption is found. This only affects some users. I thought the affected users had in common that they are using POP3 in "leave-messages-on-server" mode, and that their mailboxes are big ( > 100 MB). However I've found a few counterexamples, few and far between (not every login) but still. Google's no help, for once :-) Could this be a locking problem, a bug with big Maildirs (counterexamples being few), or what? I know some of my users have had problems logging several IMAP clients into the smae account at the same time, would...

> This should just be a bitcast from one pointer to another pointer type. Here's a likely counterexample: the AVR (8 bit embedded) has a byte-addressed data space and word-addressed code space. Legal C code involving pointer casts can confuse all known versions of avr-gcc into generating bad function pointer code that jumps to twice the address of the intended target. Last I heard

> I don't think your example is actually problematic. The original program > before your transformation *executed* undefined behavior in the form of '%x > = add nuw i32 %m, %n' with "%m = %n = 2^32-1 (a.k.a INT_MAX)". If I I was trying to show why the rule "signed overflow is undefined behavior" is problematic w.r.t. hoisting arithmetic by repeating an

Sarah et. al.: As a matter of aesthetics (i.e. my personal ocd-ness) I prefer using the public API of an object, i.e. *not* to makes use of the representation of a factor as essentially an integer vector with labels, but rather to use its documented behavior. (Feel free to ignore this remark!) Anyway, >cumsum(!duplicated(dat1$B)) [1] 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 will do it. This is very

Hi! Is it valid to assume that the scope for a parameter-describing DILocalVariable always is a DISubprogram? Or do you know of any case where a parameter's scope can be a sub-scope of the DISubprogram? I added a check to the IR verifier and an assertion to DIBuilder::createParameterVariable() that verify this. This resulted in one test case, DebugInfo/X86/double-declare.ll, failing when

On 03/13/2018 09:23 AM, Doran, Harold wrote: > While working with sapply, the documentation states that the simplify argument will yield a vector, matrix etc "when possible". I was curious how the code actually defined "as possible" and see this within the function > > if (!identical(simplify, FALSE) && length(answer)) > > This seems superfluous to me,

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Trevor Harmon <Trevor.W.Harmon at nasa.gov> wrote: > On May 10, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Xinfinity wrote: > >> Is it possible to get the list of BasicBlocks building the condition >> of a loop and the list of BasicBlocks that form the body? > > Based on my (limited) experience with Loop and LoopInfo, this isn't > possible. (But

On 01/28/2015 11:29 PM, Sanjoy Das wrote: >> I don't think your example is actually problematic. The original program >> before your transformation *executed* undefined behavior in the form of '%x >> = add nuw i32 %m, %n' with "%m = %n = 2^32-1 (a.k.a INT_MAX)". If I > I was trying to show why the rule "signed overflow is undefined >

Could your code use vapply instead of sapply? vapply forces you to declare the type and dimensions of FUN's output and stops if any call to FUN does not match the declaration. It can use much less memory and time than sapply because it fills in the output array as it goes instead of calling lapply() and seeing how it could be simplified. Bill Dunlap TIBCO Software wdunlap tibco.com On Tue,

Hi all, This is covered by (struct-path aware) TBAA, but BasicAA disagrees. See the attached testcase, where it prevents us from removing the redundant load. For arbitrary GEPs, we can't decide based on constant indices (because of e.g., &A[0][1] and &A[1][0], with *A a one-element array). BasicAA has some logic to "try to distinguish something like &A[i][1] against

Quite possibly, and I?ll look into that. Aside from the work I was doing, however, I wonder if there is a way such that sapply could avoid the overhead of having to call the identical function to determine the conditional path. From: William Dunlap [mailto:wdunlap at tibco.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:14 PM To: Doran, Harold <HDoran at air.org> Cc: Martin Morgan <martin.morgan