search for: unjustifiably

Hi, I am currently extending one of our CRAN packages and ran into an unexpected problem when checking the source package. I got some warnings in the step "* checking for code/documentation mismatches". I double checked everything and did not see anything that would actually justify this warning. After testing around for quite a while, I think I can now pinpoint the problem. In

Hi, I just figured out that I accidentally posted my message in HTML, so I am retrying in plain text only. Sorry. I am currently extending one of our CRAN packages and ran into an unexpected problem when checking the source package. I got some warnings in the step "* checking for code/documentation mismatches". I double checked everything and did not see anything that would

> In beginModule, we construct the CUs, but not all the DIEs that belong to >>> the CU. >>> In endFunction, we started to construct the scope DIEs. So in some >>> sense, we are adding things to prior CUs. >>> >>> Looking at void CompileUnit::addDIEEntry(DIE *Die, uint16_t Attribute, >>> DIE *Entry), we can possibly have 3 CUs, this CU,

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:59 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > In beginModule, we construct the CUs, but not all the DIEs that belong >>>> to the CU. >>>> In endFunction, we started to construct the scope DIEs. So in some >>>> sense, we are adding things to prior CUs. >>>> >>>> Looking at void

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:22 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:24 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:24 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:59 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> In beginModule, we construct the CUs, but not all the DIEs that belong >>>>> to the CU. >>>>> In endFunction, we started to construct the scope DIEs. So in

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:59 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> In beginModule, we construct the CUs, but not all

In "Modern Applied Statistics with S-Plus" 3rd ed., footnote on page 153 regarding a model lm(Gas~Insul/(Temp+I(Temp^2))-1,whiteside), I read "Notice that when the quadratic terms are present, first degree coefficients mean 'the slope of the curve at temperature zero', so a non-significant value does not mean that the linear term is not needed.

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at

I was somewhat concerned reading Mark's posting earlier today. Obviously, things are very bad in the US at the moment. Their Government even deported Cat Stevens the other day (check http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3686992.stm ). Clearly, given the fact that Digium contributes so much to Asterisk, they shouldn't be forced to risk their company's future by hosting these

Hi, I am using AJAX so much that I never refresh the entire webpage for the admin side of a webapp. If two people are viewing the same data and one person makes a change then I want the change to show up in the other person''s page. I can have the client poll the server every two seconds to look for changes. I''m not really interested in Comet for keeping a connection open

All that being said, I'm asking these questions because I don't know for sure - but that we cannot add unjustified complexity, we must understand why it is there and have tests to demonstrate its necessity. So to play some Devil's Advocate - how does your patch handle the following situation: hdr.h: struct foo { template<typename T> struct bar { }; }; src1.cpp: #include

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:24 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > > As I understand, some people legitimately use Phabricator for internal > > review, ... > > MIPS currently do this for patches that only touch the MIPS backend > (details can be found at > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140602/220385.html). >

Dear NSD users, Here is the release candidate for NSD 3.2.15. This comes with ILNP support, NSD-RRL and different TSIG initialization (it fails if it can't find no suitable algorithms, instead of can't find 'one of the'). Plus some bugfixes. The NSD-RRL implementation is based on the work by Vixie and Schryver. However, because of the code-diversity argument that is at the basis

...rifications. Then, I have another question. But first, let me introduce how I ended up here, because obviously I just don't go around dyn.unloading things that I've just compiled. I was testing a package with valgrind. Everything ok, no leaks. Great. But I'm always suspicious (probably unjustifiably) of all the memory that is reported as "still reachable", so I wanted to check whether there was any difference if I detach(unload=TRUE) the package after all the tests. In a nutshell, I ended up discovering that the following code: ``` library(simmer) simmer() # allocates a C++ object,...

There are a few places where we break the assumption: 1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy), where Arg does not belong to SPCU. 2> inlined_subroutine constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute abstract_origin The inlined_subroutine does not belong to the CU we call addDIEEntry on. We create the children

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at

On 01/23/2015 04:05 PM, Always Learning wrote: > On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 21:19 -0500, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote: > >> I object to this sort of crap. Hidden, no reason for an *IX desktop to >> be forced to ignore or deal with this crap. >> >> Anybody else seeing it? >> >> In case attachments aren't allowed in the list, here's the Dropbox url >>