search for: stabilise

Has Timo backed off work, and been busy with something else, or has 1.0 really stabilised that much? Seems to me just a couple of weeks ago we were seeing a new test release every few days... now there's been nothing all month... I'm hoping it's ready for release... but if it's just that Timo's busy, well, I can understand that. We're about to receive some...

I have prepared a rough draft of my GSoC proposal, I'd request the mentors to look into it, and guide me upon the same. Google docs link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/158TI2EaUrqVsD__-mXdKUIlVM9_9cGlnc5w7NwX8ahs/edit?usp=sharing Regards. Aditya Kumar.

Hello, I'm Ayush from New Delhi, India. I am interested in Letor Stabilisation project for GSoC. I have a good background in machine learning. Sorry for getting in so late, university exams were holding me back. I'll try to cover as much as I can in the coming week. I am following the plan of attack suggested on the project page. Following are the things that I have completed: 1.

Hello everyone, I have completed introducing some code from v-hasu's branch into mine, mainly for Features, FeatureVector and FeatureManager classes. I have pushed the changes to https://github.com/ayshtmr/xapian/tree/letor-update. I am now proceeding to write unit tests for feature modules. There are a few things that I wanted to clarify: 1. I have introduced a lot of code in a single

Current uninitialized sensor detection does not work for me on nv4b and sensor returns crazy values (>190?C). It stabilises later, but it's too late - therm code shutdowns the machine... Let's just reset it on init. Signed-off-by: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz at gmail.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/therm/nv40.c | 12 +++++++++++- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --g...

Hello, I wanted to decide the dataset that should be used for Letor stabilisation project. I think 2009 INEX Wikipedia Collection <http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/departments/databases-and-information-systems/software/inex/> should work fine. It's a collection of 2,666,190 XML articles, 115 topics <http://inex.mmci.uni-saarland.de/protected/adhoc/2009-topics.zip>, 50,275 qrel

Hi All, I am interested in applying for the two projects listed in the Xapian Gsoc 2019 project idealist: "Learning to Rank Stabilisation" and "Weighting Schemes". I have downloaded the codebase and going through some of the commits related to Letor API, BM25, and DFR weighting schemes. Can anyone tell me how to write about the formal proposal for the above-mentioned projects?

...mail.com> wrote: > I have submitted a bug some time ago to LLVM bugtracker: > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=8931 Hi Siarhei, This is a really silly bug with a simple fix. We have a similar patch here locally, but as this is part of another set of patches we were waiting for it to stabilise. There are some other build attributes that need to be set when you're using NEON or VFP, but I'll try to get them working without any other modification as a clean cut patch. I'll round it up and submit the patch. Thanks for reminding about it. cheers, --renato

Hello, My name is Prakhar Pratyush. I am a 4th year Electronics & Communication engineering undergraduate student at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee. My primary areas of Interest are machine learning, and Information Security and I am proficient in C++/Python/JavaScript programming languages as well. I was looking into the past gsoc organizations, and I came across Xapian. I

On 2009-02-08, at 05:59, Jonas Maebe wrote: > The proposal suggests to change/split the existing sub/add/mul > opcodes. This makes me wonder to what extent it is (currently, or > ever) advisable for an external compiler to generate LLVM IR. Is > there a plan to stabilise at some point and guarantee backwards > compatibility to a certain extent, or should compilers that are not > integrated in the LLVM infrastructure always target one particular > release of LLVM? LLVM does guarantee backwards compatibility with compiled bitcode. The C++ interface...

Hi, I have submitted a bug some time ago to LLVM bugtracker: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=8931 The problem is that I'm trying to use clang in linux system, running on ARM hardware. And this bug, as trivial as it is, seems to be a major showstopper. I wonder if I'm the only one trying to use LLVM/clang in this configuration or doing something in an unusual way? Anyway, the LLVM

...d a bug some time ago to LLVM bugtracker: > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=8931 > > Hi Siarhei, > > This is a really silly bug with a simple fix. > > We have a similar patch here locally, but as this is part of another > set of patches we were waiting for it to stabilise. There are some > other build attributes that need to be set when you're using NEON or > VFP, but I'll try to get them working without any other modification > as a clean cut patch. > > I'll round it up and submit the patch. Thanks for reminding about it. Hi Renato, I...

Dear, I'm having problems with the configuration of this gateway(GrandStream GXW 4108), I used the instructions from GrandStream but it doesn't work. Someone has a good configuration for this gateway? Thanks in advance, Nelson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

...one is > interested: > http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/IntegerOverflow.txt The proposal suggests to change/split the existing sub/add/mul opcodes. This makes me wonder to what extent it is (currently, or ever) advisable for an external compiler to generate LLVM IR. Is there a plan to stabilise at some point and guarantee backwards compatibility to a certain extent, or should compilers that are not integrated in the LLVM infrastructure always target one particular release of LLVM? Jonas

...when using the sample code, but if I require "fastthread" before "thread" using fastthread (0.6.4.1) then I see the app bleeding memory. Here is the output from that program linked above (with time added in): Using require "thread" Max memory: 76.1 mb - climbed then stabilised after first "waiting" message Output: Starting threads waiting for 1000 threads waiting for 713 threads waiting for 407 threads waiting for 34 threads Threads gone. 67 seconds Using require "fastthread"; require "thread" Max memory: 163 mb - continued to climb, never...

I've missed that one, already a month ago! investigation needed... -- Arnaud ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Daniel Drake <dsd at gentoo.org> Date: 2008/5/26 Subject: [fprint] libusb-1.0 enters beta To: fprint at reactivated.net Hi, libusb-1.0 has entered beta. http://www.reactivated.net/weblog/archives/2008/05/libusb-10-enters-beta/ libusb-1.0 is the lowest level

> How are you compiling this? I get the following sort of output: > > llvm-gcc incdec.cpp -o incdec I am currently using LLVM 1.8 -- I was basically holding off porting until LLVM 2.0 stabilises because I want to be able to move to 64 bit Intel and don't want to have to hit a moving target. > void %inc(int* %p) { > entry: > %tmp = volatile load int* %p ; <int> [#uses=1] > %tmp1 = add int %tmp, 1 ; <int> [#uses=1] >...

...on this list. The xapi project is hoping to make a ?2.0? release in about 3 months (september IIRC), which should have all the portability problems fixed and should be easier to package and maintain. Does this sound too late for Jessie? Or would it make sense to add release candidates to Jessie and stabilise it all together? Cheers, Dave

Hello everyone, My name is Ayush Tomar. I'll be working on Learning to Rank stabilisation project over the summers. Here are a few things that I plan to do in coming few days: 1. Revise the timeline. There are some portions that I had kept for the first and second week of coding which have already been done (except writing tests). So, I'd like to adjust the timeline according to it. 2.

...> On 2009-02-08, at 05:59, Jonas Maebe wrote: > >> The proposal suggests to change/split the existing sub/add/mul >> opcodes. This makes me wonder to what extent it is (currently, or >> ever) advisable for an external compiler to generate LLVM IR. Is >> there a plan to stabilise at some point and guarantee backwards >> compatibility to a certain extent, or should compilers that are not >> integrated in the LLVM infrastructure always target one particular >> release of LLVM? > > LLVM does guarantee backwards compatibility with compiled bitcode. The &...