Displaying 20 results from an estimated 3000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] [Frustration] API breakage"
2011 Jul 13
0
[LLVMdev] [Frustration] API breakage
On 13 July 2011 15:47, fly language <flylanguage at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't really buy the manpower argument. Updating the release doc when
> breaking the frigging API is the Right Thing To Do and shouldn't take that
> long, when done when the change is fresh in memory.
I regularly make small API-breaking changes in the name of cleaning
things up. Sorry! I'd be
2011 Jul 13
1
[LLVMdev] [Frustration] API breakage
On Jul 13, 2011, at 8:09 AM, Jay Foad wrote:
> On 13 July 2011 15:47, fly language <flylanguage at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't really buy the manpower argument. Updating the release doc when
>> breaking the frigging API is the Right Thing To Do and shouldn't take that
>> long, when done when the change is fresh in memory.
>
> I regularly make small
2011 Sep 01
0
[LLVMdev] git Status Update?
> Have we made any progress on a potential git conversion? AFAIK the only
> outstanding technical issue is the monotonic revision number question.
> Personally, I have no nead for them but others have expressed
> reservation about losing them.
There are very decent solutions to the monotonic revnum issue (git
describe, hooks/tagging), so that shouldn't hold back the transition.
2011 Jul 14
4
[LLVMdev] [Frustration] API breakage
I've updated the release notes for all API changes I've made since 2.9
was branched:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20110711/123990.html
> Preferably all in the same place, in order, with (approx.) revision
> numbers where it happened. It'd make our jobs much easier to merge our
> local base with trunk.
I haven't gone into quite that much
2011 Sep 01
2
[LLVMdev] git Status Update?
FlyLanguage <flylanguage at gmail.com> writes:
>> Have we made any progress on a potential git conversion? AFAIK the only
>> outstanding technical issue is the monotonic revision number question.
>> Personally, I have no nead for them but others have expressed
>> reservation about losing them.
>
> There are very decent solutions to the monotonic revnum issue
2011 Jul 18
0
[LLVMdev] [Frustration] API breakage
On 07/14/2011 11:23 AM, Jay Foad wrote:
> I've updated the release notes for all API changes I've made since 2.9
> was branched:
>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20110711/123990.html
Thanks. But what about the API changes related to the new type system
(OpaqueType gone, etc.)? Is that documented somewhere? Shouldn't it be
in the release
2011 Jul 14
2
[LLVMdev] [Frustration] API breakage
On 07/13/2011 05:09 PM, Jay Foad wrote:
> I regularly make small API-breaking changes in the name of cleaning
> things up. Sorry! I'd be happy to update the release notes if folks
> reckon this is the right thing to do. Would it just mean adding a<ul>
> to the (currently empty) list in docs/ReleaseNotes.html#api_changes ?
That's definitely needed. Not every LLVM user
2011 Sep 01
4
[LLVMdev] git Status Update?
Have we made any progress on a potential git conversion? AFAIK the only
outstanding technical issue is the monotonic revision number question.
Personally, I have no nead for them but others have expressed
reservation about losing them.
Can we have a discussion about that to identify the core tasks currently
needing monotnic revision numbers and how they might be accomplished
under git?
2008 May 04
1
Residual resampling for non linear reg model
I was attempting to use the residual resampling approach to generate 999 bootstrap samples of alpha and beta and find their confidence intervals. However, I keep getting the error message:Error in nls(resample.mp ~ cases/(alpha + (beta * cases)), start = init.values, : singular gradientafter R has only produced a few bootstraps.Could anyone suggest where I am going wrong? Would greatly
2011 Sep 01
0
[LLVMdev] git Status Update?
> That's what we need to have a discussion about. If those things will
> work for people, great. If not, we have some stuff to figure out.
Agreed. Hopefully core peeps will chime in.
>> I suppose it's merely a manpower thing now
>
> I'm not assuming that given the volume of e-mail around this.
Sending mail is cheap. Switching to git completely isn't.
2012 Nov 22
1
[LLVMdev] loop pragmas
> Other types of annotations that are
> "harmless" are probably good to have, for example "unroll-by" (assuming
> that this is a suggestion to the compiler, not an order).
| To my knowledge, we are avoiding to allow the user to 'tune' the
| compiler. Manual tuning may be good for a certain piece of hardware, but
| will have negative effects on other platforms.
2009 Dec 31
3
XML and RCurl: problem with encoding (htmlTreeParse)
Hi,
I'm trying to get data from web page and modify it in R. I have a
problem with encoding. I'm not able to get
encoding right in htmlTreeParse command. See below
> library(RCurl)
> library(XML)
>
> site <- getURL("http://www.aarresaari.net/jobboard/jobs.html")
> txt <- readLines(tc <- textConnection(site)); close(tc)
> txt <- htmlTreeParse(txt,
2011 Jul 26
2
[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:56 AM, FlyLanguage <flylanguage at gmail.com> wrote:
> #define ASSERT_STRM(cond, args) \
>> if (!(cond)) AssertionFailureStream(__FILE_**_, __LINE__) << args
>>
>> Note that there's no trailing semicolon, as this is supplied at the
>> point where the macro is invoked.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
2006 May 03
6
New Release: One-Click Ruby Installer 1.8.4-17 release candidate 2
We are almost there to a final release. The uninstall issues have been
fixed, and a few packages have been upgraded to more recent versions. Many
thanks to Ryan Leavengood and Shahank Date who stepped in to help finish off
this release!
*** Only "show-stopper" problems will be fixed ***
We are extreme short of manpower at the moment. So as much as I would like
to address each and every
2011 Sep 03
0
[LLVMdev] git Status Update?
> On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:15 PM, FlyLanguage wrote:
>
>>> Is that really true? I've heard of a lot of LLVM developers using git
>>> but it all seems very opaque right now. That's why I hope to get people
>>> talking so we can find out where everyone is and go from there.
>>
>> Yet, there's surprisingly little complaint about Subversion around
2011 Jul 18
1
[LLVMdev] Fw: RTTI gone in 3.0?
Forgot to CC the list, sorry.
----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com>
> To: FlyLanguage <flylanguage at gmail.com>
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RTTI gone in 3.0?
>
> Hi FlyLanguage,
>
> I thought LLVM disabled RTTI a long time ago. It was just too slow.
>
> --Sam
>
2007 Mar 19
2
OpenGL and Wine on iMac/OS X (x86)
Hello,
first of all - sorry for my bad english.
I need some help building wine on my x86 mac. I don't have any
problems building it using the description on "WineHQ.org" but i have
problems editing the script enabling D3D / OpenGL support
Building Wine i receive the following warning message indicating that
D3D / OpenGL support is disabled:
"configure: WARNING: Wine will be
2011 Jul 26
0
[LLVMdev] Proposal for better assertions in LLVM
Den 26.07.2011 20:12, skrev Talin:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:56 AM, FlyLanguage <flylanguage at gmail.com
> <mailto:flylanguage at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> #define ASSERT_STRM(cond, args) \
> if (!(cond)) AssertionFailureStream(__FILE____, __LINE__)
> << args
>
> Note that there's no trailing semicolon, as this
2013 Oct 28
1
[heads up] axing AppleTalk and IPX/SPX
Hello!
[Cc to stable@, for wider audience]
The plan is two axe two old networking protocols from FreeBSD head/,
meaning that FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE, available in couple of years would
be shipped without them.
1) AppleTalk
Last time claimed to be supported by vendor in 2007[1]. In practice
had very little use since 90th.
Discontinued by major routing equipment vendors since 2009[2].
2011 Sep 03
6
[LLVMdev] git Status Update?
On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:15 PM, FlyLanguage wrote:
>> Is that really true? I've heard of a lot of LLVM developers using git
>> but it all seems very opaque right now. That's why I hope to get people
>> talking so we can find out where everyone is and go from there.
>
> Yet, there's surprisingly little complaint about Subversion around here,
> which is kinda