search for: that_

...r schedules execution of multiple threads. >> >> > That is, it is talking about the dynamic behavior of the >> >> > implementation. On the other hand, the proposed attribute presumably >> >> > makes a statement about the program itself _assuming that_ its >> >> > execution gets scheduled. So there is no applicable definition of >> >> > "progress" in the cited section of the C++ spec. >> >> >> >> I don't understand. What is the alternative to "assuming that its &gt...

.../13 13:01:08, 7] param/loadparm.c:lp_servicenumber(4051) lp_servicenumber: couldn't find hl5150d [2005/03/13 13:01:08, 8] param/loadparm.c:add_a_service(2305) add_a_service: Creating snum = 7 for hl5150d Looking at the sources the printer is first looked up in lp_servicenumber() and _after that_ the service is added by add_a_service(). Has anyone a hint where to look at? TIA -- Peter -- Peter.Weiss@consol.de ConSol* Software GmbH Phone +49 89 45841-100 Consulting & Solutions Mobile +49 177 6040121 Franziskanerstr....

...like to know if one of the base or > recommended packages would contain a variant of the subset function that > would consider missing values as true. The subset argument to subset is something that evaluates to logical - a vector of True or False. If you wanted to treat missing values _in that_ as TRUE, wrap it in an ifelse: ifelse(is.na(condition), TRUE, condition) where condition can be a logical or an expression evaluating to logical. S Ellison ******************************************************************* This email and any attachments are confidential. Any use...{{dropped:...

...ss" it is referring to > how some abstract scheduler schedules execution of multiple threads. > That is, it is talking about the dynamic behavior of the > implementation. On the other hand, the proposed attribute presumably > makes a statement about the program itself _assuming that_ its > execution gets scheduled. So there is no applicable definition of > "progress" in the cited section of the C++ spec. I don't understand. What is the alternative to "assuming that its execution gets scheduled"? ~ Johannes > Cheers, > Nicolai > &...

...gt; how some abstract scheduler schedules execution of multiple threads. >>  > That is, it is talking about the dynamic behavior of the >>  > implementation. On the other hand, the proposed attribute presumably >>  > makes a statement about the program itself _assuming that_ its >>  > execution gets scheduled. So there is no applicable definition of >>  > "progress" in the cited section of the C++ spec. >> >> I don't understand. What is the alternative to "assuming that its >> execution gets scheduled"?...

...-parents llvm/trunk/test/DebugInfo/Generic After these commands, I expected Generic/ to be populated, but it is not, because the "--depth=immediates" *creates* the directory, but then it marks it as depth=empty. And then, later, calling svn update --depth=immediates _doesn't override that_. This is apparently not a bug in subversion, that's is how it is "supposed" to work. It's just super confusing. If I use --depth=files instead of --depth=immediates, that fixes this issue, since in that case, it won't create the subdirs and mark them as depth=empty. Also, the...

...-parents llvm/trunk/test/DebugInfo/Generic After these commands, I expected Generic/ to be populated, but it is not, because the "--depth=immediates" *creates* the directory, but then it marks it as depth=empty. And then, later, calling svn update --depth=immediates _doesn't override that_. This is apparently not a bug in subversion, that's is how it is "supposed" to work. It's just super confusing. If I use --depth=files instead of --depth=immediates, that fixes this issue, since in that case, it won't create the subdirs and mark them as depth=empty. Also, the...

Poking around in the .git\llvm-upstream-svn tree, I find that llvm\trunk\test\DebugInfo\Generic is empty, as are all the other subdirectories of test\DebugInfo that I tried. I have other files in the checkin that are in leaf directories but those files all exist. I hacked git-llvm to add a –verbose option: `git apply --verbose -p2 -` returned 1 Checking patch

On 9/4/20 7:39 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: > > On 9/4/20 6:31 PM, Atmn Patel via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> We’ve prepared a new function attribute `maynotprogress` and loop >> metadata `llvm.loop.mustprogress` in order to better formalize the way >> LLVM deals with infinite loops without observable side-effects. This >> is deeply

OK, so i''ve played a bit with mocks and mock_models in controller and view tests and i have a question. Is this statement really correct: "We highly recommend that you exploit the mock framework here rather than providing real model objects in order to keep the view specs isolated from changes to your models." (http://rspec.rubyforge.org/documentation/rails/writing/views.html