search for: volat

Dear all, i have daily stock prices for more than 10 years and want to compute annual volatilities for certain dates during this period. Since i have found no "easy" way to work with time data, the data presents itself in the structure TIme Index - Stock Price 1 - 15,6 2 - 17 ... ... 2010 - 28 2011- 28,5 ... 4500 - 23 Since I want to have the volatility only for certain dates...

..._str.c: In function `toktocliplist': lib/util_str.c:104: warning: assignment discards `const' from pointer target typ e Compiling tdb/tdbutil.c tdb/tdbutil.c: In function `tdb_chainlock_with_timeout': tdb/tdbutil.c:46: warning: passing arg 1 of `tdb_set_lock_alarm' discards `volat ile' from pointer target type tdb/tdbutil.c: In function `tdb_lock_bystring': tdb/tdbutil.c:73: warning: assignment discards `const' from pointer target type tdb/tdbutil.c: In function `tdb_unlock_bystring': tdb/tdbutil.c:87: warning: assignment discards `const' from pointer tar...

...<demelier.david at gmail.com> > To: freebsd-stable at freebsd.org > Subject: Re: 9.2-PRE: switch off that stupid "Nakatomi Socrates" > Message-ID: <5249C194.8030504 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 30.09.2013 15:50, Matthieu Volat wrote: >> >> Le 30 sept. 2013 ? 01:54, Ricardo Ferreira <ricardo.ferreira at sotechdatacenter.com.br> a ?crit : >> >>> Em 29-09-2013 19:11, Charles Sprickman escreveu: >>>> On Sep 29, 2013, at 3:28 PM, C. P. Ghost wrote: >>>> >>>>...

Is there a "cookbook" for setting this up? There are examples for setting up a tunnel between two fixed-address networks (e.g. a remote LAN that needs to be "integrated" with a central LAN over IPSec but I can't find anything addressing the other situation -- remote user(s) where the connecting IPs are not known in advance, such as a person with a laptop or smartphone in a

...runtime invokes _finally properly alone the way to final target. Again, take the case #2 as example, the outer _finally must be invoked before control goes to $t10. ? To be clear, we're talking about making all memory accesses, including accesses to local variables, in the try block "volatile"? So the compiler can't do any optimization on them? That gets you some fraction of the way there; there are no issues with SSA registers if there aren't any live SSA across the edge. And the compiler can't move volatile operations around each other. That leaves open the ques...

...ode, we don't care about the value in register, local variable, SSA and so on. All we need is that "live local-objects got dtored properly when HW exception is unwound and handled". For C code, only those code under _try construct is affected. Agree that making memory accesses there volatile is sub-optimal. But it should not have correctness issue. To be clear, we're talking about making all memory accesses, including accesses to local variables, in the try block "volatile"? So the compiler can't do any optimization on them? That gets you some fraction of the way...

Hello, I'd like to switch off this silly "Nakatomi Socrates" message which reminds me on Linux and their childish naming schemes. It is only cosmetics, but it bothers me whenever I switch on the laptop. I guess there is a switch already prsent to have in the bootloader config? Thanks, oh -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: