search for: leeway

Hello, I have been on a dynamic ip for about 5 years and have just upgraded to a static ip. I know I need to change my network setup on my eth0 nic to static and stop ddclient from trying to update my address but is there _really_ anything else I need to change. I have a couple of websites on this address using *:80 in my httpd.conf. I can easily change this but don't think it would really

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016, at 19:26, James Aylett wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 06:54:32PM +0200, rsto at paranoia.at wrote: > > Oddly enough, the pull request causes Travis to break for clang but not > > for gcc [1]. That's because the clang build process fails for the test > > 'querypairwise1' [2], which AFAIK I didn't touch at all. Is that a > > known

...malloc(42) use(p); free(p); } etc, which could also be done. In this case, the alloca could even be a fixed alloca coded into the prolog of the function, not a dynamic alloca. Personally to me, I have a bigger axe to grind with C++ operator new. AFAIK, the standard doesn't give leeway to do a number of interesting optimizations for new/delete because the user is explicitly allowed to override them and the std doesn't require them to behave "as expected". Very interesting properties to me would be: 1) Safety to remove "delete (new int);" and friend...

...y. You see where I am going with this? > > Long story short: The problem of determining memory amount needed for a > process to run can be reduced to halting problem. QED. I'm not sure why any of this doesn't matter if you don't lock the memory though. You may have a bit more leeway because of memory pages can be swapped out but if you have a memory leak you will eventually run out of swap space as well and run into the same problem. The reason I'm interested in this is because I recently saw a MariaDB VM get intro trouble because the host decided to move memory pages to...

This is just paraphrasing from D26602, so credit to Nicolai for first raising the issue there. float foo(float x, float y) { return x * (y + 1); } $ ./clang -O2 xy1.c -S -o - -target aarch64 -ffp-contract=fast | grep fm fmadd s0, s1, s0, s0 Is this a bug? We transformed the original expression into: x * y + x When x=INF and y=0, the code returns INF if we don't reassociate. With

...ot-release. Etc. > I was thinking for shared code it would be strictly bug fix only, but maybe things like additional C API implementations or standalone passes might be OK too assuming there is interest. However, for target specific code, I think backend code owners should have a little more leeway as far as what gets accepted. For the R600 backend I can see a situation where I may want to backport a new feature or something else, so it would be nice to have a little more flexibility and maybe other backend owners would want to have this option as well. > My second comment is that top-of-...

Behold, gtgbr@gmx.net hath decreed: > > http://www.xiph.org/about.html Note also the paragraph at http://www.xiph.org/ : "Xiph.Org Foundation is a non-profit corporation dedicated to protecting the foundations of Internet multimedia from control by private interests. Our purpose is to support and develop free, open protocols and software to serve the public, developer and business

On Apr 30, 2008, at 9:26 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Personally to me, I have a bigger axe to grind with C++ operator new. > AFAIK, the standard doesn't give leeway to do a number of interesting > optimizations for new/delete because the user is explicitly allowed to > override them and the std doesn't require them to behave "as > expected". Yes it does: Replaceable: a C++ program may define a function with this function...

...issue as what you mentioned here, but I also see a comment in lld/ELF/Writer.cpp about how .rodata and .eh_frame should be as close to .text as possible due to fear of relocation overflow. If we go with option 2 above, the distance would have to be made larger. With option 1, we may still have some leeway in how to order sections within the merged RELRO segment. Vic > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 5:42 PM Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> > wrote: > >> Hello Vic, >> >> I don't have a lot to add myself. I think that majority of the input >> needs to c...

...d but has a higher chance of dropping out. The audio requires 130-200kbit/s in each direction for a combined 260-400kbit/s. I have two transparent bridges on either side of the WAN to do traffic control. I split it so that each bridge is capped at half of the total bandwidth allowed with some leeway for performance since most network traffic is one-sided in the exchange. ie: client at co-lo makes http request which is small but then receives a huge amount of data respectively to that http request. My problem at this point is that this WAN handles all traffic from our co-location - web, m...

...cannot be satisfied under the C abstract machine without mutation of at least one object. Also, I do not read 5.1.2.3 in the way that you do. Paragraph 2 defines "side effect", but it does not imply any requirement that side effects be explicitly annotated. What Paragraph 3 gives you is leeway to optimize standard functions when you proactively know their behavior. A standard library procedure is not side-effect free for optimization purposes by virtue of the absence of annotation. It can only be treated as side-effect free by virtue of proactive knowledge of the implementation of the pr...

...was thinking for shared code it would be strictly bug fix only, but > maybe things like additional C API implementations or standalone passes > might be OK too assuming there is interest. > > However, for target specific code, I think backend code owners should > have a little more leeway as far as what gets accepted. For the > R600 backend I can see a situation where I may want to backport a new > feature or something else, so it would be nice to have a little more > flexibility and maybe other backend owners would want to have this > option as well. >> My second...

Nut-names.txt states that 1. ups.start.auto controls whether the UPS starts when mains is (re)applied. 2. shutdown.stayoff causes "turn off the load possibly after a delay and remain even if power returns". 3. shutdown.return causes "turn off the load possibly after a delay and return when power is back". 1 seems to conflict with 2 and 3. That is, 2

In principle, two separately developed packages could use the same class name, and a user could then attach both and attempt to use methods for both classes. That has never worked, but some changes have been added to r-devel to handle this case. The changes involve extending the "signature" class to include package information. For compatibility, packages will need to be

...was thinking for shared code it would be strictly bug fix only, but > maybe things like additional C API implementations or standalone passes > might be OK too assuming there is interest. > > However, for target specific code, I think backend code owners should > have a little more leeway as far as what gets accepted. For the > R600 backend I can see a situation where I may want to backport a new > feature or something else, so it would be nice to have a little more > flexibility and maybe other backend owners would want to have this > option as well. If we are going t...

...t allow? >>> >>> > Is this a bug? We transformed the original expression into: >>> > x * y + x >>> >>> I’d say yes, it’s a bug. >>> >>> >>> >>> Unless ‑ffast‑math is used (or some appropriate subset that gives us leeway, like ‑fno‑honor‑infinities or ‑fno‑honor‑nans, or somesuch), the re-association isn’t allowed, and that blocks the madd contraction. >> >> I agree. FP contraction alone only allows us to do x*y+z -> fma(x,y,z). > > > I agree too, but the more difficult question is "whi...

...if no one is actively working on it- and stop taking an > extremely condescending view upon all those who dare offer up criticism. We are truly interested in doing those things. We are working on it. The website issues *will* be resolved soon. I would think that we'd have at least a little leeway in this. If this issue is really worth getting this worked up about, I will happily refund your license fees. > *If*, however, those in charge of the icecast project aren't really interested > in those things, then perhaps they should either (a) not be a part of Xiph.Org > or (b) get...

On Apr 30, 2008, at 10:25 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, David Vandevoorde wrote: >> Note that more interesting optimizations are possible. E.g., it's >> perfectly valid to transform: >> >> void f(size_t n) { >> char *str = (char*)malloc(n); >> // use str[0 .. 99 ] >> free(str); >> } >> >> into >>

On 15-Feb-08, at 6:44 AM, ogg.k.ogg.k@googlemail.com wrote: > Well, it doesn't quite work because the second part of the gpos is > an offset, > rather than absolute, and the precision we shed on one, we need to > recover > on the other one, to keep the ability to timestamp events at the > correct > granularity. It would have worked if the second part was absolute

...code it would be strictly bug fix only, but > > maybe things like additional C API implementations or standalone passes > > might be OK too assuming there is interest. > > > > However, for target specific code, I think backend code owners should > > have a little more leeway as far as what gets accepted. For the > > R600 backend I can see a situation where I may want to backport a new > > feature or something else, so it would be nice to have a little more > > flexibility and maybe other backend owners would want to have this > > option as well...