search for: prejudicially

Apart from what has already being said, which I agree mostly, I have some specific comments: > a. We change the test suite to run in such a way that all tools default to > an "unknown" host triple. The assumptions will be different and I believe the refactoring of the tests to make them pass on all currently passing architectures will not be trivial. Good luck! ;) > b. If

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote: > Apart from what has already being said, which I agree mostly, I have > some specific comments: > > >> a. We change the test suite to run in such a way that all tools default to >> an "unknown" host triple. > > The assumptions will be different and I believe the

Hi, I haven't found in R a possibility to draw a boxplot with a diamond shape (means and CI). Does anyone know how to plot it ? thanks,

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:42 AM C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:55 AM C Bergström <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > wrote: > >> > >> Chandler - I do not want to derail, hijack or change the topic of this > >>

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 08:05 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Peter Duffy <peter at pwduffy.org.uk> said: > > The thing which always gets me about systemd is not the thing itself, > > but the way it was rolled out. When I first installed Red Hat 7, if a > > window had appeared telling me about systemd and asking me if I wanted > > to use it, or stick

Once upon a time, Peter Duffy <peter at pwduffy.org.uk> said: > The thing which always gets me about systemd is not the thing itself, > but the way it was rolled out. When I first installed Red Hat 7, if a > window had appeared telling me about systemd and asking me if I wanted > to use it, or stick with the old init framework, I'd have opted for the > latter (as I was

On 01/26/2016 05:51 AM, Peter Duffy wrote: > On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 08:05 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: >> Once upon a time, Peter Duffy <peter at pwduffy.org.uk> said: >>> The thing which always gets me about systemd is not the thing itself, >>> but the way it was rolled out. When I first installed Red Hat 7, if a >>> window had appeared telling me about

Re-reading the thread, it looks like there is a difference of opinion what "an active community behind the target" means: an active community of LLVM-target-maintainers, and/or an active community of end-users. I'd think the immediate practical concern is that there is an active community of LLVM-target-maintainers, so that the maintenance burden does not fall unduly on the rest of

Hi all, We consistently see test failures arising because by default many of our tests run in a mode where the tool (clang or llc) pick host-dependent behavior. This makes it easy for developers to write tests that pass on their system, but fail for other developers. There is some utility in this behavior, as it gives us (unintended) testing coverage of some things, but overall I think it is a

On Mar 28, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: Oscar, just FYI, your wording is very strong, and that is often not the most productive way to make your point. That said, to address some of the things you've raised in a couple of threads: >> If you think these are irrelevant points then you need to state why >> and should back it up with less

Greetings all, First off, thanks to everyone who contributed to the initial discussion thread. Judging by the responses from that thread, there seems to pretty broad interest in pursuing this. There also seem to be a few concerns. =] I'm including an updated draft based on the feedback, and I'll also try to break down the major points I've seen of discussion. Sorry for the long email,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 2:06:30 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Resuming the discussion of establishing an LLVM code of conduct > > On 5

Hi Eric, > From my perspective Win32 is the windows ABI and mingw and cygwin are their own ABIs No. They are using Windows Platform ABI for almost everything (e.g. calling API, C runtime, etc.). At least mingw does. The differences are exactly in unspecified area (e.g. passing / returning structs by value). The only difference is C++, where mingw / cygwin follows Itanium ABI and MSVC - its

...t;p_addr + i * PAGE_SIZE); vm_page_unwire(m, 0); vm_page_free(m); } +#if defined(I386_CPU) + if (cpu_class <= CPUCLASS_386) + invltlb(); +#endif /* * If the process got swapped out some of its UPAGES might have gotten @@ -910,23 +958,23 @@ * Allow the UPAGES for a process to be prejudicially paged out. */ void -pmap_swapout_proc(struct proc *p) +pmap_swapout_proc(p) + struct proc *p; { int i; vm_object_t upobj; vm_page_t m; upobj = p->p_upages_obj; - pmap_qremove((vm_offset_t) p->p_addr, UPAGES); - /* * let the upages be paged */ - for(i = 0; i < UPAGES;...

I intend to release a project I wrote with Rails. What is the right licensing scheme for a web application (content managing system) which could grow with plugins and add-ons ? Personally, I would prefer the GPL but does that mean any add-on to the CMS (like task management) will have to be GPL ? If some people contribute to the code could it still be double-licenced so that the people who