search for: verboten

I''m working with a pretty simple config at the moment to track down some issues I''m seeing with custom facts and plugins. I have factsync = true (default locations) and I have a simple fact in /var/lib/puppet/facts/ (actually it''s David''s netmask plugin) my pp file I''m testing with contains only: notice "netmask: ${netmask}" puppet -v

On 10/14/24 10:22, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > The problem with that idea is that Microsoft would also have to accept > it and they probably wouldn't. Oh. Ah. So supersets to the AD behavior are strictly verboten? > Well a trick is just that, a trick (aka workaround), now we know it > doesn't work, I will remove it from the wiki. > > Rowland > Actually, there's a new version of the trick that *does* work. I got a Wiki account so that I could document that, so, allow me. :) - John

.... Add a magic environment variable to my local world, only do the full tests if it is present, and make the dumbed down version the default. Others who want to run the full set are then SOL, which I very much don't like. I agree that CRAN avoidence, other than the time constraint, should be verboten. But I don't think that security through obscurity is the answer. And note that under scenario 3, which is essentially what is currently being forced on us, I can do such micshief as easily as under number 1. Terry Therneau

...t;, "1", "2" and then "extend" in one of the loop traversal. I believe that''s because prototype.js defines object.prototype.extend as a function. Is this a known problem? Are there workarounds? Is the use of for/in loop traversal over an Array considered verboten? Also, looking at prototype.js. In the Object.extend() function, should the variable "prototype" be declared as a local variable rather than a global? Thanks a lot! Chao Lam

...6(1) lis 3, .Lstr at ha mr 31, 1 la 3, .Lstr at l(3) bl puts li 3, 0 addi 1, 1, 16 lwz 0, 4(1) lwz 31, -4(1) mtlr 0 blr By the strict letter of the 32-bit ABI, the save and restore of r31 at a negative offset of r1 is verboten. The ABI states the the stack space below the stack pointer is declared as volatile. I actually debugged a similar problem way back in my Blue Gene/L days, where gcc had a bug and was doing the same thing. We ended up taking a signal between the restore of the stack pointer and the restore of the...

On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 00:47 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Tue, 01 May 2012 21:25:29 -0500 > Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > By the strict letter of the 32-bit ABI, the save and restore of > > r31 at a negative offset of r1 is verboten. The ABI states the > > the stack space below the stack pointer is declared as volatile. > > I actually debugged a similar problem way back in my Blue Gene/L > > days, where gcc had a bug and was doing the same thing. We ended > > up taking a signal between the restore of...

On 02/02/2014 01:48, David Chisnall wrote: > In most calling conventions, this is a callee-save register. After its last use, the register allocator may reuse that register. On x86 and ARM, the register that contains this is also (usually) the register used for But the rule "after the last use, the register allocator may reuse it" is also introduced by llvm, since register

...la 3, .Lstr at l(3) > bl puts > li 3, 0 > addi 1, 1, 16 > lwz 0, 4(1) > lwz 31, -4(1) > mtlr 0 > blr > > By the strict letter of the 32-bit ABI, the save and restore of > r31 at a negative offset of r1 is verboten. The ABI states the > the stack space below the stack pointer is declared as volatile. > I actually debugged a similar problem way back in my Blue Gene/L > days, where gcc had a bug and was doing the same thing. We ended > up taking a signal between the restore of the stack pointer an...

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:45:04 +0200 Jeroen Ooms <jeroenooms at gmail.com> wrote: > Thoughts? How verboten would it be to create an empty external pointer object, add it to the preserved list, and set an on-exit finalizer to clean up the curl multi-handle? As far as I can tell, the internet module is not supposed to be unloaded, so this would not introduce an opportunity to jump to an unmapped address....

...D, MAP_SHARED, 9, 0) ........ = 0xc166d000 [imap ][2318] mmap64(NULL, 24, PROT_READ, MAP_SHARED, 8, 0) ........... = 0xc1672000 [imap ][2318] mmap64(NULL, 576, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, 7, 0) ERR#12 ENOMEM root at hp46t243 # I think multiple mmap's of the same file are verboten -- + In most cases, two separate calls to mmap() cannot map overlapping ranges in a file. The virtual address range reserved for a file range is determined at the time of the initial mapping of the file range into a process address...

...Sep 2, 2024 at 10:05?AM Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalibera at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 4/25/24 17:01, Ivan Krylov via R-devel wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:45:04 +0200 > > Jeroen Ooms <jeroenooms at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Thoughts? > > How verboten would it be to create an empty external pointer object, > > add it to the preserved list, and set an on-exit finalizer to clean up > > the curl multi-handle? As far as I can tell, the internet module is not > > supposed to be unloaded, so this would not introduce an opportunity to...

On 4/25/24 17:01, Ivan Krylov via R-devel wrote: > On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:45:04 +0200 > Jeroen Ooms <jeroenooms at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thoughts? > How verboten would it be to create an empty external pointer object, > add it to the preserved list, and set an on-exit finalizer to clean up > the curl multi-handle? As far as I can tell, the internet module is not > supposed to be unloaded, so this would not introduce an opportunity to > jump to a...

One other solution that's only a little crazy: you could have a R function within your package that generates the appropriate (portable) Makevars, and within the package `configure` script call that function. For example" R --vanilla --slave -e "source('R/makevars.R'); makevars()" And that 'makevars()' function could generate portable

>>>>> Dirk Eddelbuettel writes: > On 10 May 2019 at 10:52, Johannes Ranke wrote: > | Thanks, that sounds good. But I need some help as I do not know much about > | autoconf and Debian packaging: Is it enough to patch configure.ac (r76467) or > | do we need to update configure as well (r76468)? > Again, that would happen in the sources you pick up from me, and per

Doing this would make clang's diagnostic output dependent on the optimization level, which is absolutely verboten. Also, a ud2 doesn't mean your program has a bug, and I doubt an asm-level diagnostic would be useful to anyone. A ud2 just means "if control flow ever reaches this point, the program has undefined behavior"; in that sense, they don't even have to be emitted. btw, compiling wit...

I wrote this abomination just now, and wonder if anyone else has had experience with the pattern behind it. In short, I''m specing an after_create hook on an ActiveRecord model, that calls a bunch of private methods. Instead of stubbing all those private methods (which is verboten anyway, as well as impossible because creating the object which owns those methods is what I''m specing, so I don''t have the object until I call do_action.) I''m stubbing a public method that would only get called if control-flow worked out like it should (the proverbial c...

Is it just me or would it be nifty if Clang emitted a warning message when it generates an "ud2" (UnDefined2) instruction. I know this is x86-specific, but it would be sort of nice to know up front. After all, the compiler knows perfectly well that it is outputting an "ud2" instruction and I'm pretty sure almost every programmer out there would like to share the unhappy

Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> writes: > Well, Dirk has said to have given his last reply on this thread. > I (as a member of R-core) am glad about people like Dirk who > take some of our load and helpfully answer such > questions/reports on R-devel. I am glad too. Thank you. My ultimate goal is to ensure that R works as well on FreeBSD as it does elsewhere.

...05?AM Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalibera at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 4/25/24 17:01, Ivan Krylov via R-devel wrote: >>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:45:04 +0200 >>> Jeroen Ooms <jeroenooms at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thoughts? >>> How verboten would it be to create an empty external pointer object, >>> add it to the preserved list, and set an on-exit finalizer to clean up >>> the curl multi-handle? As far as I can tell, the internet module is not >>> supposed to be unloaded, so this would not introduce an oppor...

...m with | > gfortran 9). | | Afaics, the issue certainly affects current gfortran-8 in testing? Correct -- my bad. As Debian pulled that upstream patch in. In any event I was planning to push an updated r-base package carrying the patch to configure. And the as-discussed issue with noisy "verboten compiler switches" warning we are being handed between Debian imposing switches and R not liking them. Dirk -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org