similar to: Possible repeat{} / break function bug in R 3.4.1

>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> >>>>> on Wed, 23 Aug 2017 09:10:20 +0200 writes: >>>>> Peter Bosa <Peter.Bosa at oregonmetro.gov> >>>>> on Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:39:50 +0000 writes: >> Hello, I've noticed the following error using repeat{} / break in R 3.4.1 running on Windows 10 and

It is a bug in the byte-code compiler. I will fix Tomas On 08/23/2017 09:22 AM, Lionel Henry wrote: > I don't think that's a bug. source() uses eval(), and eval() creates a > new function-like context frame. In a way expecting `break` to work > inside source() is like expecting `break` to cross stack frames: > > my_break <- function() break >

I don't think that's a bug. source() uses eval(), and eval() creates a new function-like context frame. In a way expecting `break` to work inside source() is like expecting `break` to cross stack frames: my_break <- function() break repeat(my_break()) Lionel > On 23 ao?t 2017, at 09:17, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: >

oops, I should have tried it: expr <- quote(break) repeat(eval(expr)) So eval() has hybrid semantics where `break` has more reach than return(), weird. expr <- quote(return()) repeat(eval(expr)) # infloop Lionel > On 23 ao?t 2017, at 09:24, Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalibera at gmail.com> wrote: > > It is a bug in the byte-code compiler. I will fix >

Fixed in 73112. If you needed to run this code in unpatched versions of R, you can disable the problematic compiler optimization in the loop for instance by adding "eval(NULL)" to the body of the loop. However, please do not forget to remove this for future versions of R and specifically do not assume this would turn off a particular compiler optimization in future versions. Best

>>>>> Peter Bosa <Peter.Bosa at oregonmetro.gov> >>>>> on Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:39:50 +0000 writes: > Hello, I've noticed the following error using repeat{} / break in R 3.4.1 running on Windows 10 and Windows Server 2008 (both 64-bit environments). > When running a repeat function, the break command causes an error message if the repeat

hi , my guess is you connect all of the clients to the same mount point, causing icecast to interleave the data. Which is obviously not a good thing. If this is the case, then you should get the errors as soon as you start the second stream. i start any stream via sh-skript like : ./ices -B -d Radiocity -F /music/playlists/alternative.pls -m /alternative -g Alternative -h localhost -n

When I use apt-get install r-base, I am getting the 3.1.0 beta instead of 3.0.3 I tried the install from three different mirrors with the same result: ## R repo deb http://cran.stat.ucla.edu/bin/linux/ubuntu precise/ Setting up r-base (3.0.3.20140328-1precise0) ... Setting up r-base-dev (3.0.3.20140328-1precise0) ... Setting up r-base-html (3.0.3.20140328-1precise0) ... root@UNew-SAS:~# R R

At this years Ohio LinuxFest 2009 Don Vosburg will be presenting on his experiences deploying Samba in various configurations: "So You Think You Can Dance? Samba in the Real World" by Don Vosburg Samba is a terrific file sharing project - but how well can you dance? Hear real world examples of hot to swing with Samba. We will explore integration with existing networks, or standing up

Well, we wanted to put an install on a USB key. Neither I nor the other admin was amused by the singing and dancing that the wiki offers - and just *why* is it that syslinux is broken? At any rate, I did some googling, and found <http://www.pendrivelinux.com/>, and I ran this installer. Ok, it has some bugs: a) I had several .isos, and it *insisted* on grabbing the first one,

Hello, I have tried starting uTorrent with wine. This is a freshly installed Debian (Etch) 4.0. I get the error 1114: I start it with Putty (I am using VNC as well, have gotten the same error in xterm) This is the log - > > dance at ks364332:~$ Application tried to create a window, but no driver could be loaded. > Make sure that your X server is running and that $DISPLAY is set

Hello, While investigating one of the existing tests (test/CodeGen/X86/tailcallpic2.ll), I ran into IR that produces some interesting code. The IR is very straightforward: define protected fastcc i32 @tailcallee(i32 %a1, i32 %a2, i32 %a3, i32 %a4) { entry: ret i32 %a3 } define fastcc i32 @tailcaller(i32 %in1, i32 %in2) { entry: %tmp11 = tail call fastcc i32 @tailcallee( i32 %in1, i32 %in2, i32

So having just learned how to do has_many :through as opposed to HABTM, and then, being concerned that I wouldn''t get it to work, I started thinking about these two approaches. It seems to me that the _only_ problem that the HM:T (has_many :through) approach solves that HABTM doesn''t is the issue of the potential collision of id columns between your join table and one of

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:26 AM David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 02:21 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 01:18 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > > > > > For now I'm just going to attempt to work around it like this in the > > > kernel, so I can concentrate on the

Being that you SAMBA developers had to work so hard to reverse engineer the AD protocols. Will there soon be improvements and more full featured functionality in SAMBA now that you have access to more documentation? Is anything on the order of a fully feature AD clone in the works. Also, how do you dance around patented protocols? Can you still implement them? Do you have to avoid them?

Hi all, I am writing to you since I think I am experiencing a regression on the latest beta release, R version 3.1.0 beta (2014-03-28 r65330) -- "Spring Dance" .. Since I need to check for it before posting, I was searching for a method to revert to version 3.0.2 in Ubuntu, but I was unable to find it. Could you please give me some hints? Thanks ~ Francesco Brundu [[alternative HTML

On 8 Aug 2013, at 18:34, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com> wrote: > I have the auto upgrade for turning bitcasts into inttoptr/ptrtoint implemented, but it isn't necessary with the current rule that same sized pointer bitcasts are allowed. This would be always necessary if all cross address space bitcasts were disallowed. The ptrtoint inttoptr dance isn't adequate for this

Hey Eli, On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > Hello, > > While investigating one of the existing tests > (test/CodeGen/X86/tailcallpic2.ll), I ran into IR that produces some > interesting code. The IR is very straightforward: > > define protected fastcc i32 @tailcallee(i32 %a1, i32 %a2, i32 %a3, i32 > %a4) { > entry: >

Steven P. Donegan wrote: > I don't want to be negative here, but I do believe people who go to do this know the potential risks they face. In many countries (4 of which I have direct, although several year old experience with - all in Asia) taking a local phone line and attaching asterisk to it and gatewaying traffic from other countries will be considered to be 'theft' by the

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:01 PM Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> wrote: > > In preparation for allowing architectures to define their own > implementation of the 'READ_ONCE()' macro, move the generic > '{READ,WRITE}_ONCE()' definitions out of the unwieldy 'linux/compiler.h' > and into a new 'rwonce.h' header under 'asm-generic'. Adding