search for: googlers

I think I''ve found a bug with Edge. I''m trying out Ryan Bates'' multi-object form technique shown in one of his Rails-casts (railscasts.com/episodes/75). If you use a fields_for similar to that shown (here: http://pastie.caboo.se/110480), you get a Server Error 500: ------ Status: 500 Internal Server Error Conflicting types for parameter containers. Expected an

...s may > or may not technically allowed in C, but it seems generally undesirable, and > it’s extremely undesirable in CL where these kinds of thread joins are a > fundamental of the programming model. > > —Owen > > > On Aug 6, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at googlers.com> wrote: > > Chandler pointed out another interpretation of C11/6.7.3.1, in which > 'restrict' only addresses aliasing within a single thread. If that's > the right interpretation, then it's a bug in LLVM that it moves > noalias pointers across memory-ordering o...

...r array. However, the results will differ if we CSE the later read of array[0] with the earlier one. Executed as written, the final value of array2[0] will be array[0]+1. If we perform the CSE, the result will be just array[0]. —Owen On Nov 10, 2013, at 9:16 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at googlers.com> wrote: > Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I don't know if anything > came out of this, since Xiaoyi never wrote back. What does some of the > affected code look like? My opinion is still that 'restrict' should > mean that no other thread should use a poin...

...9;t happen-before or happen-after B. It's a defect in C that this is ambiguous. Anyone want to volunteer to send it to the committee? (I'll be happy to proofread, etc., just not be in charge of finding the right email target) On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at googlers.com> wrote: > This sounds a lot like the question at > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-July/064462.html. It > sounds like you have a pointer marked 'restrict', but it's actually > aliased in another thread. That would be undefined behavior even with > a...

...ting a load above a thread-join. This may or may not technically allowed in C, but it seems generally undesirable, and it’s extremely undesirable in CL where these kinds of thread joins are a fundamental of the programming model. —Owen On Aug 6, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at googlers.com> wrote: > Chandler pointed out another interpretation of C11/6.7.3.1, in which > 'restrict' only addresses aliasing within a single thread. If that's > the right interpretation, then it's a bug in LLVM that it moves > noalias pointers across memory-ordering opera...

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> some version of GCC and later (linux folks should pick?) > > 4.6 is the official compiler on Ubuntu 12.04 (released 04/2012), which > is the latest Long Term Support release (which come out every 2 years, > with

Hi, This is our test setup: 4 phones, 2 logged into the one queue, the other 2 phones are used to dial into the queue. If there are 2 calls coming into the queue at the same time, we would like to have the 2 queue phones ringing at the same time (one for each call). But as it is, the 2nd phone only starts ringing after the first one was picked up. Scenario: One of the non-queue phones dials

Just so that it gets into the archives for future googlers: If you get 'system error 64' on a windows xp machine trying to connect to samba, then make sure you have nothing running on port 445. I had an apache ssl instance running on that port. Doh! Had to scratch my head a bit over it. XP doesn't actually need anything to be on 445, it ju...

Dear Friends, This is Shao from National University of Singapore(NUS). I'm currently doing my exchange study in Royal Institute of Technology(KTH), Sweden. IR is really interesting to me. I've taken a Information Retrieval course during the exchange study here in KTH http://www.csc.kth.se/utbildning/kth/kurser/DD2476/ir12/labblydelser/assignment2. The Weighting Schemes and Learn to Rank

...> the active participants in the group, the mailing list means that any > security responders at Google who may need to know this information about a > particular issue will have access even if me or kcc (or any other Googler) > are all unavailable. > > Keeping me, kcc, and other Googlers who end up joining as top-level > members with their info listed the same as other members seems like it > would address the 1st and 3rd points. > > I think it would make sense if the mailing list had read-only access to > limit chatter to address the 4th point. This mailing list isn...

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at googlers.com> wrote: > The C++ proposal changes rapidly. While it would be great to get usage > experience from LLVM in order to inform the C++ proposal, I don't have > "what will eventually be in C++" to propose for LLVM. Well, I'd expect > some "range<IteratorType&...

...to a controller it worked fine, but when the result set was very large it would choke with this error (or redirect, or whatever you want to call it). The solution, in my case, was to just pass the minimal information necessary and do a second lookup in the controller. I hope this helps some future googlers. If anyone else any insights on this issue they''d like to share, please do. Regards, Dan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send emai...

On Jan 8, 2013, at 4:26 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at googlers.com> wrote: >> Another thing to bring up is that we have a lot of classes which have >> method pairs `foo_begin()` and `foo_end()` (e.g. >> `Function::arg_{begin,end}()`). These don't play nice with range-for >> loops (we are already seeing this come up in LLD). We pr...

I understand that keeping this within one company is easiest from an organization perspective, so if Fangrui and Mehdi (and other Googlers) are able to take this on, that’s great. If not, I can raise this internally at Facebook. An estimate of the total costs incurred would be helpful for that, e.g. you mentioned Sendgrid being a couple of hundred dollars a month. Thanks, Shoaib From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org&...

Dear R wizards--- I have a wrapper on mclapply() that makes it a little easier for me to do multiprocessing. (Posting this may make life easier for other googlers.) I pass a data frame, a vector that tells me what rows should be recomputed, and the function; and I get back a vector or matrix of answers. d <- data.frame( id=1:6, val=11:16 ) loc <- c(TRUE,TRUE,FALSE,TRUE,FALSE,TRUE) v1 <- mc.byselectrows( d, loc, function(x) x[,2]^2 ) v2...

Thanks Zola, I’d rather have point-contact people, instead of having mailing lists. I have a few goals with this: Listing particular people makes it clear who’s on the hook from your organization These people can still communicate internally, but are responsible to ensure that the internal folks know what the LLVM process and disclosure restrictions are Listing a limited number of specific people

...t, so we can get some consensus on what > the diff is. > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:21 AM Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com> wrote: > >> I understand that keeping this within one company is easiest from an >> organization perspective, so if Fangrui and Mehdi (and other Googlers) are >> able to take this on, that’s great. If not, I can raise this internally at >> Facebook. An estimate of the total costs incurred would be helpful for >> that, e.g. you mentioned Sendgrid being a couple of hundred dollars a month. >> >> >> >> Thanks,...

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:25 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:15 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:33 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:04 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev

Hey Jeffrey, Thanks for the suggestion. A few comments... On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at googlers.com>wrote: ... > > If you can find a way to implement -fsanitize=undefined to use the FP > trap instead of a branch when checking floating division by 0, I > suspect such a patch would stand a good chance of being accepted. > (Although I'm not intimately familiar with the impl...

...is. > Indeed, I'll try to start a doc on this. > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:21 AM Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com> wrote: > >> I understand that keeping this within one company is easiest from an >> organization perspective, so if Fangrui and Mehdi (and other Googlers) are >> able to take this on, that’s great. If not, I can raise this internally at >> Facebook. An estimate of the total costs incurred would be helpful for >> that, e.g. you mentioned Sendgrid being a couple of hundred dollars a month. >> >> >> >> Thanks,...