similar to: Tweaks to plugin dependency rules

The dependency checking currently provided is clearly not good enough. There's currently two issues with the plugins that exist in the compiz repository. plane plugin conflicts with cube and rotate plugin, zoom plugin should probably work with either cube or plane but currently only loads when cube plugin is used. Adding a { CompPluginRuleBefore, "cube" } to the plane plugin and a

On 4/22/14, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 7:28 AM, Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi devs, >> >> after my intentionally "playful" EuroLLVM presentation (*) I think it >> would be time to get serious about merging to ToT. But we should >> probably find out whether an optimized

Hi, Im just wondering what strategy I should use for checking out from your repo. I''ve seen posts here announcing BackrounDRb 1.0 RC 2, 1.0 but I don''t see any tags in the repo for these releases - I only see two old tags (release-0.2.0 & release-0.2.1). I''m assuming the HEAD code might be a bit unstable at times so should I use timestamps for checking

> I am not able to register on bugzilla due to spam error.can someone help me with this issue? support-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org

Hi devs, after my intentionally "playful" EuroLLVM presentation (*) I think it would be time to get serious about merging to ToT. But we should probably find out whether an optimized algorithm is desired at all. So I'd solicit comments from the code owners (Use.{h,cpp}) and anybody who is interested. For closer scrutiny, the code is here:

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel at pengutronix.de> wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 12:36 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:36:55 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote: >> >> > > I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, so forgive me if it >> > > has been. Have

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> wrote: > I agree this is a great idea. I think it needs to be fleshed out a little > though. > > It would still be wise to run the regression detection algorithm, because > the test suite changes and the machines change, and the algorithm is not > perfect yet. It would be a valuable source of

Sorry ,it's not bugzilla it's trac software and i have asked about this on irc but i didn't get any reply. On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 09:26:37AM +0000, Eric Lindblad wrote: > > > I am not able to register on bugzilla due to spam error.can someone > help me with this issue? > > > >

Intel has a binary comparator tool that we have been using for several years for comparing output binaries to see if the code within them is considered identical. We use it to eliminate runs (and therefore some performance noise) from our own performance tracking tools. We are willing to contribute the source code for this to the LLVM community if there is interest. There are two programs

In May I sent out a draft security vulnerability process. Mostly it seems to have met with approval or at least acquiescence. We received some comments and based on that I have prepared a new final draft. The changes ought not to be controversial. Please send any final comments by the 28th of July (14 days from now). Unless there are objections, we will regard the process as formally in force

I'd love to see this tool contributed, even it isn't used for regression detection work. I've got a couple of hacked up scripts which do similar things and having a robust tool available for this would be very useful. Philip On 05/26/2015 09:53 AM, Smith, Kevin B wrote: > > Intel has a binary comparator tool that we have been using for several > years for comparing

There is a mistake on the "Weibull Distribution" (base package) help page in the online docs (http://docs.stat.ufl.edu/R/doc/html/). The formula for Var(X) should have Gamma(1 + 1/a)^2 in place of Gamma(1 + 1/a). -- Alex Trindade Assistant Professor of Statistics University of Florida http://www.stat.ufl.edu/personnel/usrpages/trindade.shtml

There is a mistake on the "Weibull Distribution" (base package) help page in the online docs (http://docs.stat.ufl.edu/R/doc/html/). The formula for Var(X) should have Gamma(1 + 1/a)^2 in place of Gamma(1 + 1/a). -- Alex Trindade Assistant Professor of Statistics University of Florida http://www.stat.ufl.edu/personnel/usrpages/trindade.shtml

Dear all, May I ask is there any functions in R to evaluate the fitness of "coxph" and "survreg" in survival analysis, please? For example, the results from Cox regression and Parametric survival analysis are shown below. Which method is prefered and how to see that / how to compare the methods? 1. coxph(formula = y ~ pspline(x1, df = 2))

OK, there is interest from at least a couple of people. What should next steps be? Kevin From: Chris Matthews [mailto:chris.matthews at apple.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 10:57 AM To: Philip Reames Cc: Smith, Kevin B; Sean Silva; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: change LNT’s regression detection algorithm and how it is used to reduce false positives I agree. I

Full_Name: Christian Lederer Version: 1.8.0 OS: Linux Submission from: (NULL) (217.229.7.13) R-1.8.0 seems to calculate wrong covariances, when the argument of cov() is a matrix or a data frame. The following should produce a matrix of zeroes and NaNs: x <- matrix(c(NA ,NA ,0.9068995 ,NA ,-0.3116229, -0.06011117 ,0.7310134 ,NA ,1.738362 ,0.6276125, 0.6615581 ,NA

I like that idea! > On Jun 2, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Smith, Kevin B <kevin.b.smith at intel.com> wrote: > > The code for cmpimage and getdep consists of five source files, with the following sizes > > $ wc * > 5912 20353 191869 cmpimage.cpp > 290 1328 10668 elf.h > 1496 5006 41691 getdep.cpp > 233 959 7692 macho.h > 403 1831 18394

I agree. I think there are a lot of exciting uses for this tool. A stage 3 build bot would be another one. > On May 28, 2015, at 10:14 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > I'd love to see this tool contributed, even it isn't used for regression detection work. I've got a couple of hacked up scripts which do similar things and having a robust

I'm interested in these very questions (librsync-rsync relationship, remaining limitations of rsync, active prospects for ground-up rewrites), Google searches for rsync info have proved a little too vague due to the programs ubiquity. Much has certainly changed since this was written, could some people with knowledge in these areas could update martin's response for the state of rsync,

Based on my reading of the release pages (https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html and http://releases.llvm.org/) 6/5 would make GCC 4.7 and Clang 3.1 required, and GCC 4.8 and Clang 3.3 the first to not warn. 6/5 is surprisingly close to making the policy conform to exactly our current time-lag, where we are GCC4.8 (instead of 4.7) and Clang 3.1 (also 3.1). -Erich From: Andrew Kelley