search for: hutchins

...a limit of 8 characters. If the username is longer the program exits. Is there a way to strip the domain name from the username so that the username is just user. Usernames across all of our domains are globally unique so there shouldn't be a problem with duplicate names. Thanks Chuck Hutchins

Hello, just checking into the amazing world famous 4k web-framework mailing list esquire! -El -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20060715/f1f487ee/attachment.html

I am a relative R newbie and I am having trouble with reshape() on R V1.9.1 on Linux. The same code appears to be ok when run on R V2.2.0 on Windows and a V2.1 on Linux. Any help would be great as I need to stay on V1.9 for the immediate future... Thanks, Reid Hutchins df <- data.frame(state= rep(1:2, each=8), school=rep(1:2,each=4), class=rep(1:2,each=2),Values2Columns=rep(1:2, each=1), score=rnorm(16)); df wide <- reshape(df, idvar=c("state", "school","class"), timevar = "Values2Columns",direction = "w...

Dear R-devel, A while ago Prof. Ripley had mentioned that g77 on AMD64 isn't the greatest, and the Salford Fortran is likely to be better. My question is, has anyone tried compiling R with Salford compilers (or other commercial compilers)? If so, do they offer performance advantages over GCC? TIA for any info. Best, Andy Andy Liaw, PhD Biometrics Research PO Box 2000, RY33-300

> I think many people were confused by this at first but an excellent counter > example was provided in a previous thread: C99 ABIs can require that struct > return values are returned via a pointer to a preallocated struct passed as > an auxiliary argument *except* when you're talking about a C99 complex, in > which case the return value is conveyed in a completely different

On 2009-02-18, at 14:53, DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > On 2009-02-18, at 08:06, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> Still, there are a large number of potential foibles here. For >> instance, passing an argument can require platform-specific >> contortions to conform to the platform ABI... > > Are those contortions...

On Wednesday 18 February 2009 21:27:21 DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > Try implementing a generic complex number class in Java, and watch the > two-order-of-magnitude drop in performance on scientific code. Amen. I haven't proven it with a working HLVM yet but I believe LLVM will make it possible (even easy?) to generate extremely performant code...

On Wednesday 18 February 2009 23:36:27 DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > > Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages > > would benefit from type variables in LLVM? > > I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with > > instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. > > I'm surp...

> The same can be said of closures, garbage collection and a dozen other > features that also cannot feasibly be added to LLVM. > > The only logical solution is to build a HLVM on top of LLVM and share that > between these high-level language implementations. This is an excellent point. You have convinced me. :-) BTW, what garbage collector are you using for your HLVM? You

On Thursday 19 February 2009 03:31:04 DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > > The same can be said of closures, garbage collection and a dozen other > > features that also cannot feasibly be added to LLVM. > > > > The only logical solution is to build a HLVM on top of LLVM and share > > that between these high-level language implement...

I have an Android client (x-plore) that was able to see and mount shares from my server until the latest upgrade. I've tried setting client ipc min protocol = NT1, but it still can't browse to the server and can't connect to shares if I supply the address.Is there some browsing/sharing setting that I might have missed in the most recent version? This is Debian bullseye samba

I have an Android client (x-plore) that was able to see and mount shares from my server until the latest Debian upgrade. I've tried setting client ipc min protocol = NT1, but it still can't browse to the server and can't connect to shares if I supply the address.Is there some browsing/sharing setting that I might have missed in the most recent version? This is Debian bullseye

Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages would benefit from type variables in LLVM? I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:43 PM, DeLesley Hutchins <delesley.spambox at googlemail.com> wrote: >> I think many people were confused by this at first but an excellent counter >> example was provided in a previous thread: C99 ABIs can require that struct >> return values are returned via a pointer to a preallocated struct pass...

> Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages > would benefit from type variables in LLVM? > I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with > instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. I'm surprised you're happy with a non-polymorphic llvm. Does Cayenne target llvm? Dependent types take polymorphism to new heights -- but

On Wednesday 18 February 2009 20:57:02 DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > > It's done by the front-end. There are a variety of attributes and > > mechanisms which are used to convolute data and marshall it through > > call sites in an ABI-conformant manner. > > Oh dear. :-( I think many people were confused by this at first but an e...

> It's done by the front-end. There are a variety of attributes and > mechanisms which are used to convolute data and marshall it through > call sites in an ABI-conformant manner. Oh dear. :-( Do the attributes change depending on the type? I would assume that attributes like "ccc" are type-invariant; i.e. every instantiation should use the C-calling convention, whatever

> I was thinking of the "T extends Comparable" part, which does involve > subtype polymorphism. Apologies if I'm getting terms mixed up. It was a bad example -- not close enough to actual LLVM. :-) > What do the parametrized types give you that you don't get from using > opaque instead of T? Possibly nothing. I don't really understand the limitations of

...mal pass taking advantage of a general call-site-context-sensitive inter-procedural points-to analysis. Getting rid of the indirection in the generic dictionary seems like the same problem as devirtualizing method calls, so a unified solution would be nice. On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 14:53, DeLesley Hutchins <delesley.spambox at googlemail.com> wrote: > > Moreover, specialization should really be done at the codegen level > in order to do it properly. C++ templates are a great example of > why *NOT* to do specialization within the high-level language. > But specialization (in the...

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: > Is the expectation that to utilize this metadata an optimization pass > would have to inspect the body of @f and reason about its behavior given > <args>? > > > Yes. > > > If so, then I think this is pretty bad. If we ever want to parallelize > function passes, then they can't

Thanks for the detailed response! :-) > This is by design. LLVM's type system is very low-level... Yes, and it should remain low-level. :-) > Expecting it to directly support generics seems a third-order-of- > magnitude leap of faith. :) But there is good news for the faithful? Let us distinguish between generics as found in java or .Net, and parametric polymorphism in general.