search for: starke

Hi, Given i have this share : [j.snow] Path = /home/j.snow Share and ntfs permission : j.snow user Now I add another folder share inside the first one : [a.stark] Path = /home/j.snow/a.stark Share and ntfs permission : a.stark user /home/j.snow/a.stark has now parent inherit permission (j.snow) AND a.stark user a.stark can't access to her share ! if I add a.stark NTFS access to [j.snow]

Try as I might I can't seem to get LLVM to bulid using clang/clang++. No matter what I do it insists on using /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++ which are gcc. Am I missing something obvious? I vaguely remember some document describing a stage1 compiler built by your old toolchain and a stage2 compiler but I can't find the steps to do that any more. $ CC=/usr/local/bin/clang

or add acl_xattr:ignore system acl = yes to your share. more info man smb.conf .. Gr. Louis >-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >Van: J.Morillo at educationetformation.fr >[mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org] Namens MORILLO Jordi >Verzonden: vrijdag 5 juni 2015 15:21 >Aan: samba at lists.samba.org >Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] [Bug or Limitation] Folder sharing

clang revision is good, but the kernel is probably too new. Evgenii can comment on that. On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Greg Stark <stark at mit.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Greg Stark <stark at mit.edu> wrote: > > Checked out a few days ago. It looks like r246697. I suppose I could > > try updating and rebuilding. > > Sorry, svn log in the

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > 2 questions: > - Do you see this with the fresh llvm trunk? > - Can you prepare a minimized example? Pretty recent, I updated a couple days ago. I tried to minimize the attached but at the same time I didn't want to lose too many unions and casts in case it didn't trigger any more. $ clang

Hi Duncan-- Nice simulation! The absolute difference in probabilities is small, but the maximum relative difference grows from something negligible to almost 2 as m approaches 2**31. Because the L_1 distance between the uniform distribution on {1, ..., m} and what you actually get is large, there have to be test functions whose expectations are quite different under the two distributions.

Hm, that bug has been closed as resolved but I still see the problem: $ clang --version clang version 3.8.0 (trunk 250848) (llvm/trunk 250846) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix InstalledDir: /usr/local/bin configure:4042: ./conftest FATAL: Code 0x5615faea43f0 is out of application range. Non-PIE build? FATAL: MemorySanitizer can not mmap the shadow memory. FATAL: Make sure to

No, the 2nd call only happens when m > 2**31. Here's the code: (RNG.c, lines 793ff) double R_unif_index(double dn) { double cut = INT_MAX; switch(RNG_kind) { case KNUTH_TAOCP: case USER_UNIF: case KNUTH_TAOCP2: cut = 33554431.0; /* 2^25 - 1 */ break; default: break; } double u = dn > cut ? ru() : unif_rand(); return floor(dn * u); } On Wed, Sep

It doesn't seem too hard to come up with plausible ways in which this could give bad results. Suppose I sample rows from a large dataset, maybe for bootstrapping. Suppose the rows are non-randomly ordered, e.g. odd rows are males, even rows are females. Oops! Very non-representative sample, bootstrap p values are garbage. David On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 at 21:20, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan

I'm struggling to explain an ASAN report I'm now getting that I didn't get previously on the same code. In fact the report only happens with -O2 and not when I remove the -O flags which makes it hard to debug and makes me suspect it's dependent on exactly which instructions the code generation decides to access the bytes involved. Afaict the C code shouldn't be accessing the

The 53 bits only encode at most 2^{32} possible values, because the source of the float is the output of a 32-bit PRNG (the obsolete version of MT). 53 bits isn't the relevant number here. The selection ratios can get close to 2. Computer scientists don't do it the way R does, for a reason. Regards, Philip On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:05 AM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > What's the version of Linux and Clang? Checked out a few days ago. It looks like r246697. I suppose I could try updating and rebuilding. $ uname -a Linux pixel 4.2.0-trunk-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.2-1~exp1 (2015-08-31) x86_64 GNU/Linux -- greg

Please note clarifications in <<>> below. My apologies for any confusion. Thanks again, Scott ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Scott Stark <stark.sc@gmail.com> Date: Aug 23, 2007 1:03 PM Subject: Expedite scalar f(x) evaluation over vectors To: r-help@lists.r-project.org Dear R community, I am trying to code a fairly complex equation for optim(). My current

A quick point of order here: arguing with Duncan in this forum is helpful to expose ideas, but probably neither side will convince the other; eventually, if you want this adopted in core R, you'll need to convince an R-core member to pursue this fix. In the meantime, a good, well-tested implementation in a user-contributed package (presumably written in C for speed) would be enormously

On 19/09/2018 3:52 PM, Philip B. Stark wrote: > Hi Duncan-- > > Nice simulation! > > The absolute difference in probabilities is small, but the maximum > relative difference grows from something negligible to almost 2 as m > approaches 2**31. > > Because the L_1 distance between the uniform distribution on {1, ..., m} > and what you actually get is large, there

For a well-tested C algorithm, based on my reading of Lemire, the unbiased "algorithm 3" in https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10941 is part already of the C standard library in OpenBSD and macOS (as arc4random_uniform), and in the GNU standard library. Lemire also provides C++ code in the appendix of his piece for both this and the faster "nearly divisionless" algorithm. It would be

On 19/09/2018 5:57 PM, David Hugh-Jones wrote: > > It doesn't seem too hard to come up with plausible ways in which this > could give bad results. Suppose I sample rows from a large dataset, > maybe for bootstrapping. Suppose the rows are non-randomly ordered, e.g. > odd rows are males, even rows are females. Oops! Very non-representative > sample, bootstrap p values are

On 19/09/2018 12:23 PM, Philip B. Stark wrote: > No, the 2nd call only happens when m > 2**31. Here's the code: Yes, you're right. Sorry! So the ratio really does come close to 2. However, the difference in probabilities between outcomes is still at most 2^-32 when m is less than that cutoff. That's not feasible to detect; the only detectable difference would happen if

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Greg Stark <stark at mit.edu> wrote: > I get that even if I put -fPIE in CFLAGS. Er, yeah. Even a trivial test case doesn't work: $ cat foo.c int main(int argc, char *argv[], char *envp[]) { return 1; } $ clang -o foo -fsanitize=memory -fPIE -pie foo.c $ sysctl kernel.randomize_va_space kernel.randomize_va_space = 2 $ ./foo FATAL: Code

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Most likely, you need > https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerLeakSanitizer Thanks! > I don't think lsan supports this mode directly, > but why do you think that the init-time allocations are going to be > "leaked"? > If there is some object still pointing to