search for: egregiously

> -----Original Message----- > From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org] > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 2:52 PM > To: Daniel Berlin > Cc: Robinson, Paul; llvm-dev; LLDB; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; openmp-dev > (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org); Rafael Espíndola > Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial > draft for an LLVM Code of

--On Thursday, January 29, 2004 11:16 PM +0200 Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote: > I don't yet really even want Dovecot to be too well known, it's not > ready yet. When 1.0 comes (this spring I hope) I'll start publicizing it > more. After that I should only need to add new features - existing ones > should be perfect and better than anyone else's ;) Just a

so last night all my servers were severely probed and they tried to violate me (lol) the attack was so egregious I decided to contact the isp for that ip. Telepacific. The ip has some google searches that point to a few spam and a few attacks...So i assume a compromised server. So I sent them the info and said it must be a hacked server (the ip is on their business network) they responded

Egregious, look what just happened few minutes ago while opening up my program and running the scripts > A<-read.table("C:\\Documents and Settings\\ + me\\Desktop\\TESI\\generale.txt",head=T) Errore: non trovo la funzione "read.table" #CAN'T FIND read.table FUNTION!!!??? ARE WE ok??? > > B<-read.table("C:\\Documents and Settings\\ +

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > I'm not sure why you're stuck on thinking I want an enumeration of > offenses. > Sorry, it's because i don't see a way to give you the below without it :) > What I'm looking for (and AFAICT also Rafael and maybe other people) is a > clearer statement that

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Scot P. Floess <sfloess at nc.rr.com> wrote: > > I'd expect better behavior and conduct from someone who holds such a > title... <request for a learning moment> Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder(s), please select my most egregious post(s) and let me know said post(s) so that I have the opportunity to better modify my behavior with

Hi listizens, Complete tc newbie here. I''m in a pinch because of a mail assault on a server. I''ve firewalled away many of the most egregious offenders but non-smtp services are still being DOS''ed because of all the mail traffic. Here is what I''ve tried. (I did say newbie ;) ----------------- #!/bin/sh # # policing parent tc qdisc add dev eth0 handle

Single Table Inheritance question. class Employee is the master model (table is employees) class Cog is the subclass model, and uses single table inheritance to be a subclass of Employee class Blurfl is a normal model (table is blurfls) in cog.rb, I have something like: def foo Cog.find(:all, :include=>''blurfl'', :condition=> ["cogs.status =

Fixes some of the more egregious problems with v1, and also applies properly to the head of git without needing any other patches. Rich.

Hi All, While trying to put together an MC-based assembler the other day, I again encountered MC's non-obvious memory ownership rules. The most egregious example of these is MCObjectStreamer's destructor: MCObjectStreamer::~MCObjectStreamer() { delete &Assembler->getBackend(); delete &Assembler->getEmitter(); delete &Assembler->getWriter(); delete Assembler;

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > | It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities > > Not looking for that. Looking to avoid being trolled. ("Trolled" isn't > the right word here but I've lost track of what the right one is. Hopefully > my intent is clear enough.) > I'm really not

>>On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev ><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Glad to see this landing! It's been a long time coming. >> >> Once this is in, please do not turn it on by default immediately. Let's >> call for volunteers to find some of the most egregious miscompiles, fix >> them, and then turn this on by

Looking over the contents of various packages, including my own, it is clear that lots of things end up 'hidden away' in packages where they don't belong. My gregmisc package is a particularly egregious example, containing something from almost every functional category. I propose that from time to time the R community go through the complete set of packages and 'refactor'

On 6 July 2017 at 11:02, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Grang, Mandeep Singh wrote: >> I would like to hear the community's thoughts on these proposals. >From the perspective of the recent focused effort on reproducible builds, I think this is excellent. >> We ideally want to compare rel vs >> rel+asserts vs debug with Linux vs

On Sun, 13 Sep 2020 at 15:51, Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote: > If you mean "amend" the message in the Web UI before merging, then yes, >> they let you change the message, but it's very easy to forget to do >> that. > > That's what I meant, yes. "Easy to forget" generally goes away when you repeat it enough times.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 05:26:13PM +0200, Piotr Kliczewski wrote: > Richard, > > Great progress. I really like it!!! > > Here is what I noticed: > > I see that in the yaml file we provide short-id as: > > os: > osinfo: 'rhel7.2' > > whereas kubevirt expects it in metadata: > > metadata: > labels: > kubevirt.io/os: win10 >

How much of a priority is it to find codegen changes triggered by flags such as -g? As long as the effects are reliable between runs this shoud be really easy to attack using C-Reduce. I can look into it if this is important. John On 7/6/17 11:12 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev wrote: >> Out of curiosity >> what kinds of changes arise from the presence/absence of -g? (It's

Hi All, After the initial learning curve, we're excited to have put together a completely gcc/binutils-free toolchain based on LLVM. Now that we have things working, we desperately need to optimize the resulting binaries. Our bin files are up to 10x their fully optimized gcc equivalent (1.5k vs 16k). This is for a bare metal ARM based system so this is significant. We're using lld for

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chandler, > > I've been looking at the regressions Quentin mentioned, and filed a PR > for the most egregious one: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22377 > > As for the others, I'm working on reducing them, but for now, here are > some raw observations, in case any of

This message is about a curious difference in timing between two ways of computing the same function. One uses expm, so is expected to be a bit slower, but "a bit" turned out to be a factor of >1000. The code is below. We would be grateful if anyone can point out any egregious bad practice in our code, or enlighten us on why one approach is so much slower than the other. The problem