search for: leonards

Hello John, On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 16:33 +0000, John Hodrien wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > > > How about my request for checksums in the git repo? > > What checksums would you actually want in git? SRPMS are signed which allows the integrity of the contents to be checked. Such an integrity check is missing from the git repo. Either a checksum

I compiled 3.0.6pre1, including the crtimes and fileflags patches for use on Intel OS X 10.5.6, as described by Mr. Bombich (thanks!) here: <http://www.bombich.com/mactips/rsync.html> I want to use 3.0.6 because it seems that this bug: <https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5365> has been resolved (yay!). ----- [~]$ rsync --version rsync version 3.0.6pre1 protocol version 30

Hi all, I'm attempting to move the AddressSanitizer pass from the legacy PassManager to the new one because the new one has various benefits over legacy and wanted to clarify on something. Does creating the static RegisterPass struct register the pass with the new PassManager? It seems that RegisterPass does the same things that the INITIALIZE_PASS_* macros do but it registers the pass with

I believe a good amount of them (if not most of them) have already been ported! Off the top of my head, I remember that asan, tsan, msan, hwasan, the kernel santizers, and sancov have been ported. I don't think ubsan has been ported yet though. You can also check if other passes you need run under the new PM by checking PassRegistry.def. On Fri, Aug 2, 2019, 14:20 Jordan Rupprecht

Hi Leonard, Fedor, while it's true that RegisterPass is not applicable for new-pm passes, PassRegistry.def is not the whole story. Passes in PassRegistry are available for the opt tool. The sanitizers are passes that usually get added to the pipeline by the frontend. There, you need to use PassBuilder's callbacks mechanism to hook the sanitizer into the optimizer. Assuming you're

My mistake! It does actually something else, which is incorrect. One could still use (although the code is more difficult to read): subset(tmp <- table(sample(1:10, 100, T)), tmp > 10) Sincerely, Leonard On 10/21/2023 10:26 PM, Leonard Mada wrote: > Dear List Members, > > There was recently an issue on R-devel (which I noticed only very late): >

Hello team, Just wondering how the build of 5.10 is coming along. Is there a resource that informs us on these matters? Thanks! Regards, Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research

If one makes the reasonable assumption that Pct is much larger than Cutoff, sorting Cutoff is the expensive part e.g O(nlog2(n) for Quicksort (n = length Cutoff). I believe looping is O(n^2). Jeff's approach using findInterval may be faster. Of course implementation details matter. -- Bert On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 4:41?AM Leonard Mada <leo.mada at syonic.eu> wrote: > > Dear

Hi all, I merged from the monorepo master this morning and ran all tests and noticed that llvm/test/tools/llvm-nm/libtool-response-file.test was failing due to running out of memory. The test in particular just runs `llvm-nm --help` and running this prints the help info followed by endless whitespace. Has anyone else ran into this? Thanks, Leonard

Dear Jason, The code could look something like: dummyData = data.frame(Tract=seq(1, 10, by=1), ?? ?Pct = c(0.05,0.03,0.01,0.12,0.21,0.04,0.07,0.09,0.06,0.03), ?? ?Totpop = c(4000,3500,4500,4100,3900,4250,5100,4700,4950,4800)) # Define the cutoffs # - allow for duplicate entries; by = 0.03; # by = 0.01; cutoffs <- seq(0, 0.20, by = by) # Create a new column with cutoffs dummyData$Cutoff

On 10/19/2016 11:34 AM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > Hello Gordon, > *snip* > > Personally I would be more concerned whether or not to enable ECDSA > algorithms (https://blog.cr.yp.to/20140323-ecdsa.html). > > Regards, > Leonard. > For web server ECDSA certs is currently a concern because the only curves with popular support across browsers have parameters that were

Hello Jonathan, On Wed, 2016-12-14 at 15:03 -0500, Jonathan Billings wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 07:29:19PM +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > > > get_sources.sh > > > > The name suggests this is what we need (or do we??) If only I could find > > that script anywhere... > > Johnny said it at the beginning of his email. I'll paste it again so

Frontends _are_ using PassBuilder, but they need to hook into the default pipeline creation to insert the sanitizer passes. On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:15 PM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> wrote: > Hmm... frontends should be using PassBuilder anyway. > And if they are using PassBuilder then they are using PassRegistry.def as > well - all the >

Hi all, We would like to propose a new Constant type in LLVM for representing entries in the Procedure Linkage Table (PLT). The PLT is a data structure used for dispatching position-independent function calls to appropriate functions where the address of the function is not known statically. Right now, if a call is made to a function, it may be lowered to a direct call to the function itself or

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1347 Summary: LLONG_MAX v LONGLONG_MAX Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 4.6p1 Platform: PPC OS/Version: AIX Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Miscellaneous AssignedTo: bitbucket at mindrot.org ReportedBy: David.Leonard at

Hi, I have a function foo(x,y) and a dataframe, DF, comprised of two vectors, x & w, as follows : x w 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 4 4 1 etc I would like to apply the function foo to each 'pair' within DF e.g foo(1,1), foo(2,1), foo(3,1) etc I have tried >apply(DF,foo) >apply(DF[,],foo) >apply(DF[DF$x,DF$w],foo) However, none of the above worked. Can anyone help ?

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Leonard den Ottolander < leonard at den.ottolander.nl> wrote: > Hello Mike, > > On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 13:05 -0400, Mike - st257 wrote: > > I've been through the virt-install manpage a few times now to no avail. > > What is wrong with my syntax here (seen below)? > > > ~]# virt-install --connect qemu:///system -n blahhost

I think so far most individual projects have their own statistics on build time/performance impact on switching to the new PM, but I agree that there should at least be one place that people can reference on the impact. On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:14 PM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Thanks for all the hard work that went into getting it here. > > +1 > >

+cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 2:16 PM Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com> wrote: > > Stash a lookup table from integers to strings in Context and dynamically allocate integers for new strings. You can then keep integers in most of the code, writing/displaying strings for the integers with an entry in the table when writing to files or displaying. > >

Hello all, As of now, all LLVM and Clang tests have been updated/addressed to run under the new/experimental pass manager (at least the ones that failed when using the new PM). For those who aren't aware of what the new pass manager (PM) is, the tl;dr is that this will serve as a replacement for the legacy PM, and promises faster build times by restructuring how passes are run over IR units.