similar to: Bug cleanup

> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >>> What is the motivation for this? The Win32 directory doesn't have >>> VS2003 >>> source code AFAIK, >> >> No just the VS2003 project and solution files and a about 30 sub >> directories >> which are not required on *nix platforms. So it would be good to have the >> "win32" files

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >> We also have xcode projects. If you don't want to check them out and >> update them, with svn, you can use 'svn switch' on those directories. > > Okay. Still think a separate repository would be a good idea. A bit of work > to implement but would be a good idea as every *nix user has to implement a > 'svn switch'

Good morning Does R (or R users) have a formal training workshop/facility? Or do open-source softwares generally put the onus on the user to learn programming techniques? Are the workshops generally offered for the masses or is there one-on-one training available? Does one "go to" R for programming training ... or do R workshops travel around the country? Thanks for your

Hi all, Following up on the extensive discussions since January, many of us would like to put in place a process to improve LLVM’s decision making process for contentious issues. I’ve put together a proposal for how this works, and am recursively using it to get feedback on the process itself. Thank you to the many people who contributed great ideas and improvements during the pitch phases and

> And now we're against the Atom model? I'm quite new to the llvm community, and basically unfamiliar with LLD, so maybe I'm simply uninformed. If so, I will now proceed to demonstrate that to an entire list of people. :) I've read the doc on http://lld.llvm.org/design.html, but the list of features it says that you get with LLD/Atoms and don't get with the "old

Chris wrote: > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: > > Okay. Still think a separate repository would be a good idea. A bit > > of work to implement but would be a good idea as every *nix user has > > to implement a 'svn switch' putting the onus on them rather than on > > the Windows user. > > I think you are mistakenly assuming that we aim to serve UNIX

On Mar 19, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> As RFCs go this is short and sweet - I think it would be nice to add an >> empty method to iterator_range. Something like: >> >> bool empty() const { return begin() != end();

TL;DR: It's okay to close a bug, if you can justify it properly. Recently there has been a spate of bug-closing with what I would call inadequate documentation. Comments such as "Obsolete?" or "I assume it's fixed" could be applied to nearly every open bug we have. While this does reduce the open bug count--something I have been watching with morbid fascination

On Wednesday 30 April 2008 17:26, David Vandevoorde wrote: > >> ...malloc() is not specified to access a volatile > >> object, modify an object, or modifying a file (directly or > >> indirectly); i.e., it has no side effect from the language point of > >> view. > > > > Daveed: > > > > Good to know that I was looking at the correct

Isn't svn set up to auto-parse and post to the bug so you can just say "fixes bug 44444" and it parses it out? I mean, i added that to gcc like 15 years ago, i'm surprised we don't do this :) Nobody should have to add this info manually unless someone forgot to put it in a commit message. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at

> You''re running on a shared server and when you startup the second > mongrel more than likely the VPS system is sending the second Mongrel > a kill signal because you''ve gone over your resource allocation. > > ~Wayne Thanks - are there other resources that would be contentious other than memory? I believe I had about 60Meg still available (even w/ 2 mongrels

Currently, if you were to print out the R frequently asked questions (http://cran.r-project.org/doc/FAQ/R-FAQ.html), it would be 132 pages long. Is it any wonder that so many question could be answered by looking at the FAQ but are not? Here are a few (contentious) suggestions to improve the document. * Remove the complete list of R packages * Include a complete list of frequently asked

Well, NUT does "since forever" have reference docs on packaging into 8 or so entities each with its dependency tree, so heavy stuff can be pulled in on a need-to-have basis. As anything, it can be improved and updated, but it is there and many systems follow it. Those who missed the memo... the onus is on them. The `nut-scanner` tool (and its lib) design using run-time `dlopen()` of

The MIR format currently has a short-hand syntax for declaring vreg classes and banks in the function body so you can write something like this: name: foo body: | %3:gpr(s64) = ... rather than the much more verbose and awkward: name: foo registers: - { id: 3, class: gpr } body: | %3(s64) = ... I'd like to make this shorthand the only way to do this. There are a few

On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 18:17 -0500, David A. Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 30 April 2008 17:26, David Vandevoorde wrote: > > > >> ...malloc() is not specified to access a volatile > > >> object, modify an object, or modifying a file (directly or > > >> indirectly); i.e., it has no side effect from the language point of > > >> view. > >

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Pete Cooper via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Renato >> On Jul 19, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> A few basic rules to get accepted are if: >> * the target exists and can be easily purchased / emulated

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 01:09:14PM +0200, David Ayers wrote: >Am Donnerstag, den 31.08.2017, 11:32 +0200 schrieb David Ayers: >> >> Am Donnerstag, den 31.08.2017, 10:11 +0200 schrieb Martin Kletzander: >> > >> > AFAIK the support for this was not added. Feel free to request this in >> > our bugzilla [1] so that we can track it. Or, even better, send a

Hi, I would like to remind people about the Virtualization track at Linux Plumbers Conference 2010, held in Cambridge, MA, November 3-5, 2010. Please note the deadline for submissions is July 19, 2010. LPC is particular well suited for technical presentations, work in progress and subjects that needs discussion and collaboration between communities (kernel, desktop/gfx, virtualization, etc.),

Hi, I would like to remind people about the Virtualization track at Linux Plumbers Conference 2010, held in Cambridge, MA, November 3-5, 2010. Please note the deadline for submissions is July 19, 2010. LPC is particular well suited for technical presentations, work in progress and subjects that needs discussion and collaboration between communities (kernel, desktop/gfx, virtualization, etc.),

Hi, I would like to remind people about the Virtualization track at Linux Plumbers Conference 2010, held in Cambridge, MA, November 3-5, 2010. Please note the deadline for submissions is July 19, 2010. LPC is particular well suited for technical presentations, work in progress and subjects that needs discussion and collaboration between communities (kernel, desktop/gfx, virtualization, etc.),