search for: ouija

Mehdi, Hal’s transformation only kicks in in the *presence* of UB, and it does not matter how that UB got there, whether by function inlining or without function inlining. The problem with Hal’s argument is that the compiler does not have a built in ouija board with which it can conjure up the spirit of the author of the source code and find out if the UB was intentional with the expectation of it being deleted, or is simply a bug. Function inlining does not magically turn a bug into not-a-bug, nor does post-inlining simplification magically turn a...

...platform that to add voice, instant messaging (IM), and SMS to your applications, using the programming languages and tools you already know via web services API and JSON. You can get the date/time in your local time zone here: http://vuc.me/next For all other info, including SIP, Skype, PSTN and Ouija board dial access numbers: http://VoipUsersConference.org or http://VUC.me IRC: Join us on Freenode.net on #vuc channel Hope to hear you there! /r

I am running Samba 3rc4 as a PDC. When trying to join my Windows 2000 workstation to the domain, I get the following error (on the win2k box): No mapping between account names and security IDs was done. I've searched Google, the archives of this list, the docs and a Ouija board for answers, with no success.. Can anyone provide a pointer to what it is I'm missing? Thanks in advance. Below is my smb.conf. # Global parameters [global] netbios name = CACTUSPATCH comment = Test PDC for domain TESTAREA workgroup = TESTAREA passdb b...

...e is what a static analyzer or compiler can tell before runtime, see below > > , and > it does not matter how that UB got there, whether by function inlining > or without function inlining. > > The problem with Hal’s argument is that the compiler does not have > a built in ouija board with which it can conjure up the spirit of the > author of the source code and find out if the UB was intentional > with the expectation of it being deleted, or is simply a bug. > Function inlining does not magically turn a bug into not-a-bug, nor > does post-inlining simplificati...

...ompiler can tell before runtime, see below > >> >> , and >> it does not matter how that UB got there, whether by function inlining >> or without function inlining. >> >> The problem with Hal’s argument is that the compiler does not have >> a built in ouija board with which it can conjure up the spirit of the >> author of the source code and find out if the UB was intentional >> with the expectation of it being deleted, or is simply a bug. >> Function inlining does not magically turn a bug into not-a-bug, nor >> does post-inlin...

...see below >> >>> >>> , and >>> it does not matter how that UB got there, whether by function inlining >>> or without function inlining. >>> >>> The problem with Hal’s argument is that the compiler does not have >>> a built in ouija board with which it can conjure up the spirit of the >>> author of the source code and find out if the UB was intentional >>> with the expectation of it being deleted, or is simply a bug. >>> Function inlining does not magically turn a bug into not-a-bug, nor >>>...

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=973 Summary: sshd behaves differently while doing syslog entries for tcpwrappers denied message, with -r and without -r option. Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 3.9p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

...;>> >>>> , and >>>> it does not matter how that UB got there, whether by function inlining >>>> or without function inlining. >>>> >>>> The problem with Hal’s argument is that the compiler does not have >>>> a built in ouija board with which it can conjure up the spirit of the >>>> author of the source code and find out if the UB was intentional >>>> with the expectation of it being deleted, or is simply a bug. >>>> Function inlining does not magically turn a bug into not-a-bug, nor...

Sean, Let me re-phrase a couple words to make it perfectly clear > On Jul 21, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Peter Lawrence <peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Sean, > > Dan Gohman’s “transform” changes a loop induction variable, but does not change the CFG, > > Hal’s “transform” deletes blocks out of the CFG, fundamentally altering it. > > These are two totally

...;>> , and >>>>> it does not matter how that UB got there, whether by function inlining >>>>> or without function inlining. >>>>> >>>>> The problem with Hal’s argument is that the compiler does not have >>>>> a built in ouija board with which it can conjure up the spirit of the >>>>> author of the source code and find out if the UB was intentional >>>>> with the expectation of it being deleted, or is simply a bug. >>>>> Function inlining does not magically turn a bug into not...

...>> , and >>>>> it does not matter how that UB got there, whether by function inlining >>>>> or without function inlining. >>>>> >>>>> The problem with Hal’s argument is that the compiler does not have >>>>> a built in ouija board with which it can conjure up the spirit of the >>>>> author of the source code and find out if the UB was intentional >>>>> with the expectation of it being deleted, or is simply a bug. >>>>> Function inlining does not magically turn a bug into not...