search for: grouchy

Full_Name: Graeme Ambler Version: 1.7.1 OS: Red Hat Linux 9 Submission from: (NULL) (137.222.80.161) There seems to be a curious accuracy-related problem in summary(). Try the following: test<-matrix(rnorm(2000),nc=2) summary(test) summary(test[,1]) The first use of summary() is fine. The second will lie to you about the accuracy to which numbers are displayed. The results I got were:

> On 2014 Oct 16, at 22:09, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dig into this first! This isn't the right forum for digging into ld64. > In the OP you are talking about essentially a pure "optimization" (in the programmer-wisdom "beware of it" sense), to "save" 2GB of peak memory. But from your analysis it's not clear that

I'm running Samba 2.2.3a on NetBSD. I've been having an annoying problem with winbindd dying inexplicably. I finally found a test that seems to (eventually) kill it: while wbinfo -t > /dev/null; do /usr/bin/true; done The problem is a memory leak in winbindd. Actually, wbinfo -t will still work, but wbinfo -u doesn't (response.extra_data is always null). Is this a known