search for: disqualifying

Hello testers, RC4 has just been tagged (at r229782 on the branch). RC3 was disqualified due to an infloop that Duncan reported, and fixed in r229421. That, fixes for a few scary X86 bugs, a GCC5 bootstrap problem (PR22625), and parts of PR22589 is included in RC4. Baring any showstoppers, this release candidate will be promoted to release. Please let me know how it looks and upload binaries

Hi all, Is there are base function that I've missed that tests if an object is a vector in the dimensionality sense, rather than the data structure sense? i.e. something that checks is.null(dim(x)) ? is.vector() is trivially disqualified since it also checks for the presence of non-names attributes: x <- factor(c("a", "a", "b")) is.vector(x) #> [1] FALSE

Hello! I am new to R (before used python exclusively and would actually call the R solution for this issue inside a python notebook, hope that doesn?t disqualify me right of the batch). Right now I am looking for a piece of software to fit a 1D data sample to a mixture of t-distributions. I searched quite a while already and it seems to be that this is a somehwat obscure endeavor as most

On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 8 September 2015 at 19:20, Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: >> Youtube has been discussed in the past but we have usually defaulted to >> mainly hosted on llvm.org and then a copy could potentially be on YouTube. I >> would want this to be an official

Hi, I am a PhD student interested in participating in GSoC09. Being compilers my area of research, LLVM had got my attention until I read this last post: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-March/021060.html I would like if one of the official LLVM Developers (http://llvm.org/developers.cgi) could confirm this. I understand if you are looking for students who can hit the ground

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > On May 8, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > >> >>> What are the SHA-3 variants that you think would suite these needs ? >> >> > I want to look at the implementation complexity. The winner (and the > official SHA3 algorithm),

Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 4:39 AM Alessandro Baggi > <alessandro.baggi at gmail.com> > wrote: >> Il 18/01/2016 12:09, Chris Murphy ha scritto: >> > What is the result for each drive? >> > >> > smartctl -l scterc <dev> >> > >> SCT Error Recovery Control command not supported >> > The drive is

I have a function t.test.cluster for which R CMD check results in a documentation warning because its argument names don't match those of t( ). Is there a way around this error besides renaming the function? Will this disqualify a package from admission to CRAN? How did t.test avoid this warning? Thanks, Frank --- Frank E Harrell Jr Prof. of Biostatistics & Statistics

I noticed that rsync is happy to hard-link a device node from a --link-dest dir even if its mtime differs from that of the source device node and --times is given. Is this behavior expected? It seems to break the rule that a difference in preserved attributes disqualifies a hard link. To see the behavior, run the following as root: mkdir src dest basis mknod src/null c 1 3 sleep 1 mknod

I noticed that rsync itemizes "p" whenever it copies a new file and finds an alternate basis file whose permissions differ from those to be applied to the destination file, even when --perms and --executability are both off. To see this, run the following in an empty directory: mkdir src dest basis touch src/file basis/file chmod 600 src/file chmod 644 basis/file rsync -r -ii

On 08/02/2017 07:36 AM, hw wrote: > > Don?t get me started on Fedora updates. One of the reasons to deprecate > Fedora was that upgrading had turned out to be unreliable and mostly > failing. Not being able to reliably upgrade disqualifies any > distribution. I hate to break it to you, but since they began using fedup and dnf upgrade, it's never been an issue for me at

>>> I am wondering about the status of GSoc this year. The mailing list seems to be rather quiet on the topic. Has anyone thought of project ideas? >> We just received confirmation that LLVM was accepted for this year GSoC. >> The ideas list, as usual, is placed at >> http://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html (it also contains links to >> subproject's ideas pages).

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:21 PM, leledumbo <leledumbo_cool at yahoo.co.id> wrote: > >> only if the compiler can prove that the called function has >> no side effects (such as modifying some global variables or >> causing the program to exit). > > can it prove if the function resides in a shared library? Only if the right function attributes are added. See

Final has been tagged, I think we're about to release it. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: > Are we waiting for an RC5? It seems like the release mirror on github has > no recent activity. > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com > > wrote: > >> Quick update

Hi, once I created a zpool of single vdevs not using mirroring of any kind. Now I wonder if it''s possible to add vdevs and mirror the currently existing ones. Thanks, budy -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

> > I am wondering about the status of GSoc this year. The mailing list seems to be rather quiet on the topic. Has anyone thought of project ideas? > We just received confirmation that LLVM was accepted for this year GSoC. > The ideas list, as usual, is placed at > http://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html (it also contains links to > subproject's ideas pages). > > Please

Quick update before I move on to the final tag. > clang+llvm-3.6.0-rc4-mipsel-linux-gnu.tar.xz > Still running due to a silly setup mistake on the first run (a broken > symlink to the test-suite source). Second attempt is a fair way through and > looks good so far though Default options were all good. Mips32 was about halfway but was good so far. >

> No, however it can prove it if the function is in a static library consisting > of bitcode files (what you get if you compile with -emit-llvm) and you do > link-time optimization. However it's probably simpler to declare the > function > as having no side-effects using gcc's "pure" or "const" attribute. Hmm... the library can't be made static so

Would package "teigen" help? Ranjan On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 14:41:34 +0200 vare vare via R-help <r-help at r-project.org> wrote: > Hello! > > I am new to R (before used python exclusively and would actually call the R solution for this issue inside a python notebook, hope that doesn?t disqualify me right of the batch). > > Right now I am looking for a piece of

...ere a tmpfs where you can make one? Is there already an empty one like /var/empty? On 04/16/2015 10:13 AM, Ken Chase wrote: > Wow, it took me a few seconds to figure out what you were trying to > do. > > What's wrong with rm? > > Also I think trying to leverage the side of disqualifying all > source files just to get the delete effect (very clever but > somewhat obtuse!) risks creating a temporary file of some kind in > the target at the start of the operation, and if you cant even > mkdir then that exceeds disk quota immediately and fails. > > /kc > > &...