search for: unquestionable

...t licensing between "build time" and "run time" components. > This part does need a license change one way or another. Right. > (2) LLVM contributors grant permissions to use their patents as far as > necessary for their contributions. The desirability of this is > unquestionable either. I’m not sure what you mean by "unquestionable either”. Do you mean "unquestionable good”? If we don’t achieve this, then we run the heightened risk of someone being sued for using LLVM. This isn’t good for the community. > (3) Revocation of copyright and patent use permiss...

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Brian Mathis <brian.mathis+centos at betteradmin.com> wrote: > CentOS is unquestionably one of the most used Linux distros > in the world, and yet the mailing list is relatively quiet. To me this is > a symptom of a problem, and I feel that it's partially a result of the same > regular people, I think it is generally a good thing when the

On 26 July 2016 at 00:08, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > It is unquestionably easier for a contributor to land their backend in-tree > than to maintain it out-of-tree. This is because landing it in tree shifts > the maintenance burden from the *contributor* to the *community*. If there > is low value to the community, then this is a "bad

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:08:37AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:59:33AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:01:50PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: >

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:08:37AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:59:33AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:01:50PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: >

Hello everyone, This email is a continuation of a discussion from almost a year ago, started back here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html As described in that email, this is a complicated topic and deals with sensitive legal issues. I am not a lawyer, and this email is not intended to be legal advice in the formal sense. That said, I have spoken with many

Hi, The thread titled "Another Fedora Decision" is rapidly turning into a political and opinion driven flame fest that is unsuited for the CentOS mailing list. This list should try and remain focused on CentOS, what we have and keep the area sane for new users as well as old hands to participate in a fair and thoughtful conversation around the CentOS Linux platform and the CentOS

> -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Wyett <philwyett at kathenas.org> > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 10:16 PM > To: centos at centos.org > Subject: Re: [CentOS] JavaFX on C7 ? > > On Sun, 2019-05-12 at 21:52 -0400, Fred Smith wrote: > > Hi all! > > > > I'm getting: > > > > Error: JavaFX runtime components are missing, and are

> You're right, I hadn't thought this through. The whole point of making them > local is to say that "I'm sure these callees won't modify that memory" > regardless of what functions actually get called, even indirectly. We can't > know that they won't modify the vptr in advance, so invariant doesn't work > here. Making it non-local just means

...ess issue: If clang/llvm are really incorrectly implementing the ABI this should cause interoperability issues if clang is used to compile a caller and gcc a callee to the same function (or the other way around). If you can come up with a simple example that demonstrates that it should be a fairly unquestionable change. (test cases along with the change all in a patch file help too) Thanks, - David > > Thanks > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:45 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> This seems to be another case of PR13303 - since GDB can't figure out >> where t...

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:59:33AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:01:50PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > You mean make BAR0 an MMIO BAR? > > Yes, it would break current windows guests. > > Further, as long as we use same address to notify all queues, > > we would

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:59:33AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:01:50PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > You mean make BAR0 an MMIO BAR? > > Yes, it would break current windows guests. > > Further, as long as we use same address to notify all queues, > > we would

Don't we need to distinguish funnel shift from the more specific rotate? I'm not seeing how rotate (a single input op shifted by some amount) gets into trouble like funnel shift (two variables concatenated and shifted by some amount). Eg, if in pseudo IR we have: %funnel_shift = fshl %x, %y, %sh ; this is problematic because either x or y can be poison, but we may not touch the poison when

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 9:42 AM Renato Golin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 19 July 2016 at 17:04, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > Presumably if my out-of-tree backend

Hi David, I think it might not be exactly PR13303 which might be causing the corruption of struct when accessed through GDB. This seems to be an ABI problem in clang. The problem seems to be that when we have pass by value of struct (having indirect arguments) stack is not aligned properly. I tried realigning the stack for indirect arguments in(TargetInfo.cpp) - ABIArgInfo

Core developers, I couldn't find any simple way to send a vector of colors to apply to each terminal in plot.dendrogram() or plot.hclust()---I asked R-help about it a few weeks ago and didn't get any response---so I hacked that functionality into the plot.dendrgram code (see below for hacked function plus examples).... Is there any chance this functionality could be added to the

We have these transforms from funnel shift to a simpler shift op: // fshl(X, 0, C) -> shl X, C // fshl(X, undef, C) -> shl X, C // fshl(0, X, C) -> lshr X, (BW-C) // fshl(undef, X, C) -> lshr X, (BW-C) These were part of: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54778 In all cases, one operand must be 0 or undef and the shift amount is a constant, so I think these are safe.

On 12/02/15 18:08, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Brian Mathis > <brian.mathis+centos at betteradmin.com> wrote: >> CentOS is unquestionably one of the most used Linux distros >> in the world, and yet the mailing list is relatively quiet. To me this is >> a symptom of a problem, and I feel that it's partially a result of the same >>

I have Windows XP on my computer. I am trying to access the audio on a file that my client has sent me. The message says: Codec is missig. Speex Voice A109 is not installed on your computer. When I try to install it from the internet, it tells me it cannot be installed. Can you give me any help on installing Speex Voice A109 so I can access the audio? Ann Felkins 308-235-4416 e-mail:

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1999 Bug #: 1999 Summary: When speaking v2, send client version first to avoid long delay with some proxies Classification: Unclassified Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.9p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement