search for: foiling

Hi, I would like to turn some of our simulation codes out to pasture and string some of them together by draping them in web services. I''m looking for a RESTful Camping tutorial to get started ... pointers appreciated. Some simple example applications: airfoil force calculator: feed it an airfoil geometry, an angle of attack, and a Mach number, and it returns the lift, drag, and

Understand that it's a *guess*. If this fixes or at least betters the situation, you're going to need to find a legit way to insulate these cards, or to switch cards. If it's for customers, I should hope you wouldn't be using enamelled aluminum foil. :D -----Original Message----- From: Tongbiao Li [mailto:tli@viack.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:20 AM To:

Thanks for the speedy response and detailed, enlightening explanation. Now I understand where the problem is, and will try out your suggestions just to further confirm my conjecture. When I am done, I have to take the foil out, though. This is a product for our customers to use, and although we've got budget for mulffing every sound card we developers use, most likely the company

Take what I say with a grain of salt: I'm an amateur and haven't actually touched Speex in any way, yet. I'm just sort of passing on personal belief from personal experience. Also, check and make sure that the microphone line is insulated. There are a number of problems with sound cards picking up interference from the host machine. The wires that run between ICs on a card

...t;> > > We are currently doing this, however I think disabling such > optimizations is a much better solution. An LLVM design goal is that backends should be able to outsmart instcombine when necessary, rather than having instcombine be able to disable parts of itself in order to avoid foiling the backends. Practicality sometimes steers elsewhere of course. Please explain why you think suppressing this particular optimization is better; it isn't obvious how it would look different in the end. Dan

On Dec 8, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Noalias returns, nocapture, SCC refinement, linkonce_odr and > available_externally were added with the goal of making devirtualization > in LLVM happen, but as orthogonal independent optimizations. I think > LLVM should continue with this design. If you want to implement a single > substantial optimization pass, I would suggest

John McCall wrote: > On Dec 8, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: >> Noalias returns, nocapture, SCC refinement, linkonce_odr and >> available_externally were added with the goal of making devirtualization >> in LLVM happen, but as orthogonal independent optimizations. I think >> LLVM should continue with this design. If you want to implement a single >>

> > The optimizer can currently combine stores (i32, i32) to a single > > i64 store operation. Is there a way to disable that? > > Not currently. There are some ideas floating around about > including in TargetData a list of integer types that the > target natively supports, which would allow instcombine > and other passes to make more informed decisions, but > at

...stw 3, 8(1) stw 4, 12(1) ... I'm using the PPC backend's output as the "bytecode" for an interpreter that I would like to be able to run on both little- and big-endian platforms. The split stw's mean that i32s of the f64 are swapped in memory on little-endian (thus foiling native-code interop). Can anyone suggest where I should look to lower this store differently? (ideally by libcall-ing a function that takes 2 i32s). thanks, scott

Sub: INTRODUCTION FOR SUPPLY OF SPECIAL CABLES We have pleasure in introducing ourselves as manufacturer's of specialised cables for over two decades catering to the needs of the Fertilizer, Chemical, Petrochemical, Oil & Gas, Steel, Power, Cement, Ceramic, Glass, Paper, Sugar and other industries. The following are some of the cables made by us: ANY CABLE, ANY TIME, ANY QUANTITY

...currently doing this, however I think disabling such >> optimizations is a much better solution. > > An LLVM design goal is that backends should be able to outsmart > instcombine when necessary, rather than having instcombine be able > to disable parts of itself in order to avoid foiling the backends. > Practicality sometimes steers elsewhere of course. Please explain > why you think suppressing this particular optimization is better; > it isn't obvious how it would look different in the end. Yeah, I agree. LegalizeTypes should be able to trivially lower this. -Chri...

I have been trying to write a "proper" print method for a package, and have almost gotten what I want. From a reading of the relevant section in R Extensions and the introduction to methods, I've stuck the whole business into a character object and used: NextMethod("print") However, instead of not printing quotes and displaying the usual representation of the string,

On Dec 10, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > John McCall wrote: >> On Dec 8, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: >>> Noalias returns, nocapture, SCC refinement, linkonce_odr and >>> available_externally were added with the goal of making devirtualization >>> in LLVM happen, but as orthogonal independent optimizations. I think >>> LLVM should

Hi, This is updated xen vMCE design foils, according to comments from community recently. This foils focus on vMCE part of Xen MCA, so as Keir said, it''s some dense. Later Will will present a document to elaborate more, including Intel MCA and surrounding features and Xen implementation. Thanks, Jinsong

Affected Software: rssh - all versions prior to 2.3.0 Vulnerability: local user privilege escalation Severity: *CRITICAL* Impact: local users can gain root access Solution: Please upgrade to v2.3.1 Summary ------- rssh is a restricted shell which allows a system administrator to limit users' access to a system via SSH to scp, sftp, rsync, rdist, and cvs. It also allows the system

...wever I think disabling such > >> optimizations is a much better solution. > > > > An LLVM design goal is that backends should be able to outsmart > > instcombine when necessary, rather than having instcombine be able > > to disable parts of itself in order to avoid foiling the backends. > > Practicality sometimes steers elsewhere of course. Please explain > > why you think suppressing this particular optimization is better; > > it isn't obvious how it would look different in the end. > > Yeah, I agree. LegalizeTypes should be able to triv...

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Emil Mikulic wrote: > LLVMers, given the same endianness and pointersize, can one mix and > match LLVM bytecode files produced on different platforms? No, not in general. For example, on the mac, printf it often #defined to printf$ldbl, which doesn't exist on linux. System headers generally foil the ability to move stuff around like that. -Chris --

...4ck3r.net> wrote: > I'm using the PPC backend's output as the "bytecode" for an interpreter > that I would like to be able to run on both little- and big-endian > platforms. The split stw's mean that i32s of the f64 are swapped in > memory on little-endian (thus foiling native-code interop). It's fundamentally impossible to correctly interpret using the wrong endianness, at least for general C code. Have you considered making your interpreter map memory backwards on opposite-endian platforms? -Eli

R listers: I have been foiled by plotmath! (in R 2.01,Windows 2000) The task: Plot a normal density and label the ticks as mu - 3 sigma, mu - 2 sigma, ...., mu + 3 sigma, where the mu's and sigmas appear as Greek symbols, of course. The following code does this: x<-seq(-3,to=3,by=.01) y<-dnorm(x) plot(x,y,type='h',col='lightblue',axes=FALSE)

Hi all, As fate would have it I''m giving away my old desktop to a friend who has no computer. The upside is that means I have room to setup my old-old desktop, which happens to have Windows 2000 on it. It''s a dual Pentium-II 400 with 512mb of RAM. I installed the Ruby 1.8.6 one-click on it, and it already had VC++ 6 on it. Fairly zippy, actually. What I would like to do is