search for: superset

...uot;${GHuser}"; } if header :matches "List-ID" "(.*/.*) <(.*)>" { set "mailbox" "github-lists/${1}"; } fileinto :flags "${MyFlags}" :create "${mailbox}"; stop; } I'm trying to match the apache-incubator-superset part of: List-ID: apache/incubator-superset <incubator-superset.apache.github.com> What am I missing? -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 214-642-9640 (c) E-Mail: larryrtx at gmail.com US Mail: 5708 Sabbia Dr, Round Rock, TX 78665-2106 ------------...

My 2 cents: get rid of LLVM_UNUSED_RESULT, and move to LLVM_NODISCARD. For compilers that support it, it should be a strict superset of features and functionality. The standard feature was written directly based on the clang warn_unused_result stuff. I would just migrate us onto the spelling and usage pattern that got standardized. All we have to lose are warnings from compilers other than Clang until they implement this featur...

...at the cost of introducing a few false negatives). The overarching goal is to ensure that code behaves identically regardless of the order in which packages are attached. - A number of packages provide a function that appears to conflict with a function in a base package, but they follow the superset principle (i.e. they only extend the API, as explained to me by Herv? Pages). conflicted assumes that packages adhere to the superset principle, which appears to be true in most of the cases that I?ve seen. For example, the lubridate package provides `as.difftime()` and `date()...

...y interpret a list of MMOs as indicating a set of locations which are possibly(?) accessed.  The only piece I'm unsure about is that the existence of an MMO requires the access occurs.  If we do, that raises some interesting consistency questions for cases such as: * Load/Store merging (a superset of the branch folding case) * Predicate loads and stores (since the access may not happen) * Load/stores in dead code (i.e. the typical UB contradiction cases) * Instructions w/multiple accesses to the same MMO combined w/constant memory to imm folding which only handles some cases I'...

Hi, I am looking for a way in which I can check if rows in 1 dataframe are present in another data frame in a unique way. A row in dataframe should be super set of any row in another dataframe. I can write a for loop for it, however, that will be inefficient. So, I am looking for an efficient way to do this in R. I have explained it with an example below: I want to check if a row in dataframe

...with that domain in one instruction’s alias.scope list is a subset of (or equal to) the set of scopes for that domain in another instruction’s noalias list, then the two memory accesses are assumed not to alias." This corresponds to Hal's change from llvm-svn: 213948 "... The subset/superset condition now applies within each domain independently, and we only need it to hold in one domain. Each time we inline, we add the new scopes in a new scope domain, and everything now composes nicely. In addition, this simplifies the implementation. ..." I think I understand the intent here f...

...appens to not be the approach I want to take. :) #2 (aka FOOJIT) - MC grows a new "pure" backend, which is designed around representing everything that "can be run" on a target platform. This is very connected to the inherent capabilities of the hardware / OS, and is usually a superset** of what the native object format (Mach-O, ELF, COFF) can represent. The "pure" backend defines a hard (but non-stable) object file format which is more or less a direct encoding of the native MC APIs (it is not stable, so it can directly encode things like FixupKind enum values). I do...

...tures bitmask, and for transitional devices, a mask > > > hiding a features - which are so far all bits > 31, so maybe > > > for now we can just have a global mask. > > > > How would this work for transitional presenting a modern device - would > > you have a superset of bits and masks for legacy and modern? > > Basically we expose through modern interface a superset > of bits exposed through legacy. > F_BAD for pci is probably the only exception. ccw has F_BAD as well. NOTIFY_ON_EMPTY is in the MAY be offered category. I'm still wondering ab...

...tures bitmask, and for transitional devices, a mask > > > hiding a features - which are so far all bits > 31, so maybe > > > for now we can just have a global mask. > > > > How would this work for transitional presenting a modern device - would > > you have a superset of bits and masks for legacy and modern? > > Basically we expose through modern interface a superset > of bits exposed through legacy. > F_BAD for pci is probably the only exception. ccw has F_BAD as well. NOTIFY_ON_EMPTY is in the MAY be offered category. I'm still wondering ab...

...f libvirt. When I use the function listDomainsID( ) it successfully returns me the list of the ids of my current virtual machines, but when I call function listDefinedDomains( ) it returns me an empty list. Is this some kind of bug because as per my understanding listDefinedDomains should return a superset of vm's as returned by listDefinedDomains(). I am using 0.8.8 version of the libvirt. -- Thanks Abhishek -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvirt-users/attachments/20110515/a59de941/attachment.htm>

...plex metadata *needs* to be recorded, storing this data separate from the audio files has numerous benefits: improved editibility; less redundancy; and better expression of the relationships amoung release, discs, and tracks. Even today, I use my own "metadata format" -- essentially a superset of vorbis comments. There is one file per release, even with a multi-disc release. As a final part of the ripping process, I apply this metadata to the FLAC or Vorbis files. -- -:-:- David K. Gasaway -:-:- Email: dave@gasaway.org -:-:- Web : dave.gasaway.org

On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:51 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Getting CMake up to the standard where it supports a superset of what autoconf supports is required for dropping autoconf Is there a list somewhere of what autoconf supports that CMake does not (and that people care about)? It could be that people simply don't know what's missing since, as you point out, those using CMake don't need those feature...

...I am worried that at some point x and listofxvals will *not* have the same levels, and the optimization will give the wrong answer. So I need code that guarantees they have the same coding. I think this works, where "master" is a factor with the master list of levels (guaranteed to be a superset of the levels of x and listofxvals), but can anyone spot anything that might go wrong? # Strip the levels x <- as.integer( factor(x, levels = levels(master) ) ) # Restore the levels x <- structure( x, levels = levels(master), class = "factor" ) Thanks for any advice... Duncan Mu...

...t; Why not? We did work to remove the legacy JIT in favor of > MCJIT for the usual reasons (less code/maintenance burden/etc) > - it'd seem unfortunate to then go back to maintaining two > JITs again. > > You mention the intent to provide a superset of MCJIT's > behavior, at which point it seems it'd be preferable to kill > of MCJIT in favor of ORC (heck, we killed of the legacy JIT > before MCJIT had feature parity). > > > Not having plans at the moment doesn't preclude making plans in...

...h I want to take. :) > > > #2 (aka FOOJIT) - MC grows a new "pure" backend, which is designed > around representing everything that "can be run" on a target platform. > This is very connected to the inherent capabilities of the hardware / > OS, and is usually a superset** of what the native object format > (Mach-O, ELF, COFF) can represent. > > The "pure" backend defines a hard (but non-stable) object file format > which is more or less a direct encoding of the native MC APIs (it is > not stable, so it can directly encode things like Fixup...

...file formats impose on the JIT? I don't know enough about the JIT and object file format interaction to know if this will be an issue. It seems clear that it would be worse to try to encode "extra things" in some obscure way than to create the FOO format initially. If FOO is truly a superset of everything this could even be the generic object file format that Michael Spencer was thinking about creating. Perhaps this is going the wrong direction since you wanted something less stable and directly tied to the MC infrastructure. How would introducing the FOO format later on work? - Ja...

On 8 January 2014 12:32, Bernard Ogden <Bernard.Ogden at arm.com> wrote: > I don't think there's software that *needs* the compatibility, but it is > easier for GCC projects to switch to clang if that compatibility is there - > which I think is why we go for GCC compatibility in the first place? > Hi Bernie, GCC compatibility is always considered to be an important

...o model this is really just a single > host_features bitmask, and for transitional devices, a mask > hiding a features - which are so far all bits > 31, so maybe > for now we can just have a global mask. How would this work for transitional presenting a modern device - would you have a superset of bits and masks for legacy and modern? > > We need to validate features at initialization time and make > sure they make sense, fail if not (sometimes we need to mask > features if they don't make sense - this is unfortunate > but might be needed for compatibility). > &gt...

...o model this is really just a single > host_features bitmask, and for transitional devices, a mask > hiding a features - which are so far all bits > 31, so maybe > for now we can just have a global mask. How would this work for transitional presenting a modern device - would you have a superset of bits and masks for legacy and modern? > > We need to validate features at initialization time and make > sure they make sense, fail if not (sometimes we need to mask > features if they don't make sense - this is unfortunate > but might be needed for compatibility). > &gt...

...ning(dev) && > + is_unicast_ether_addr(eth_hdr(skb)->h_dest)) > + return virtnet_vf_xmit(dev, vf_netdev, skb); > + A question here. If I read the code correctly, all features were validated against virtio instead VF before transmitting. This assumes VF's feature is a superset of virtio, does this really work? Do we need to sanitize the feature before joining? (e.g at last NETIF_R_GSO_ROBUST needs to be removed). Thanks