search for: really_

...ime" would be overkill to me. Sometimes you know you must recompile (but try to be very prudent with public-facing API). Many times you do not. It is hard to pin down. At work we have a bunch of servers with Rcpp and many packages against them (installed system-wide for all users). We _very really_ needs rebuild. Dirk -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org

...Sometimes you know you must | > recompile (but try to be very prudent with public-facing API). Many times | > you do not. It is hard to pin down. | > | > At work we have a bunch of servers with Rcpp and many packages against them | > (installed system-wide for all users). We _very really_ needs rebuild. Edit: "We _very rarely_ need rebuilds" is what was meant there. | So that comes back to my suggestion: you should provide a way for a | dependent package to ask if your API has changed. If you say it hasn't, | the package is fine. If you say it has, the package...

...is massive CLI-Support for debugging passes (think "-debug-pass=Details"). Problem is that the debug output does not show _all_ the passes that are invalidated but some _only some_ of them. Since _some_ invalidated passes are show, I never bothered to to check if my Pass was _actually really_ preserved because it did not show up in the list of invalidated passes. Attached patch adds debug output for _all_ invalidated passes. I will commit this in the next days if there are no objections. On 11/20/2009 04:30 PM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > > Andreas Neustifter wrote: >>...

...ill to me. Sometimes you know you must > recompile (but try to be very prudent with public-facing API). Many times > you do not. It is hard to pin down. > > At work we have a bunch of servers with Rcpp and many packages against them > (installed system-wide for all users). We _very really_ needs rebuild. So that comes back to my suggestion: you should provide a way for a dependent package to ask if your API has changed. If you say it hasn't, the package is fine. If you say it has, the package should abort, telling the user they need to reinstall it. (Because it's a ha...

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Andreas Neustifter <astifter-llvm at gmx.at> wrote: > > If I use  AU.addRequired<ProfileInfo>() in SelectionDAGISel.cpp the > wrong ProfileInfo is used. It uses the "No ProfileInfo" implementation > if ProfileInfo but not the one from ProfileInfoLoaderPass. (Which is > immediately discarded after creation.) > You need to

...must > | > recompile (but try to be very prudent with public-facing API). Many times > | > you do not. It is hard to pin down. > | > > | > At work we have a bunch of servers with Rcpp and many packages against them > | > (installed system-wide for all users). We _very really_ needs rebuild. > > Edit: "We _very rarely_ need rebuilds" is what was meant there. > > | So that comes back to my suggestion: you should provide a way for a > | dependent package to ask if your API has changed. If you say it hasn't, > | the package is fine. If yo...

On 16 December 2016 at 08:20, Duncan Murdoch wrote: | Perhaps the solution is to recommend that packages which export their | C-level entry points either guarantee them not to change or offer | (require?) version checks by user code. So dplyr should start out by | saying "I'm using Rcpp interface 0.12.8". If Rcpp has a new version | with a compatible interface, it replies

...recompile (but try to be very prudent with public-facing API). Many times >> | > you do not. It is hard to pin down. >> | > >> | > At work we have a bunch of servers with Rcpp and many packages against them >> | > (installed system-wide for all users). We _very really_ needs rebuild. >> >> Edit: "We _very rarely_ need rebuilds" is what was meant there. >> >> | So that comes back to my suggestion: you should provide a way for a >> | dependent package to ask if your API has changed. If you say it hasn't, >> | the...