mine | Minimal and single-header cryptography library | Encryption library

Go to Tools -> Options and search for the following options. Check the boxes and you're good to go.

As suggested here, the following will suffice:

The video has frame rate of 25fps, and not 24fps:

After putting the correct value it works ok: demo
The VideoFrame api heavily relies on FPS provided by you. You can find FPS of your videos offline and send as metadata along with stop frames from server.

The site videoplayer.handmadeproductions.de uses window.requestAnimationFrame() to get the callback.

There is a new better alternative to requestAnimationFrame. The requestVideoFrameCallback(), allows us to do per-video-frame operations on video.
The same functionality, you domed in OP, can be achieved like this:

Welcome @Backup Gov18,

This is a documented issue.

Note: Only one active BarCodeScanner preview is supported currently. When using navigation, the best practice is to unmount any previously rendered BarCodeScanner component so the following screens can use without issues.

There is a workaround.

Instead of conditionally rendering the component, you could render it inside another dedicated screen component.

This way, after this new screen reads the barcode, you could navigate back to your first screen. Navigating back may unmount this new screen. You can force unmount if you need to.

As you are using react-navigation, you had better use .pop() instead of goBack().

You can also use expo-camera instead of expo-barcode-scanner. expo-camera does not have this issue. It also offers more options like flashlight/torch and switching cameras.

In the OP's example with std::max, an ODR violation does indeed occur, and the program is ill-formed NDR. To avoid this issue, you might consider one of the following fixes:

• give the doMath function internal linkage, or
• move the declaration of kTwo inside doMath

A variable that is used by an expression is considered to be odr-used unless there is a certain kind of simple proof that the reference to the variable can be replaced by the compile-time constant value of the variable without changing the result of the expression. If such a simple proof exists, then the standard requires the compiler perform such a replacement; consequently the variable is not odr-used (in particular, it does not require a definition, and the issue described by the OP would be avoided because none of the translation units in which doMath is defined would actually reference a definition of kTwo). If the expression is too complicated, however, then all bets are off. The compiler might still replace the variable with its value, in which case the program may work as you expect; or the program may exhibit bugs or crash. That's the reality with IFNDR programs.

The case where the variable is immediately passed by reference to a function, with the reference binding directly, is one common case where the variable is used in a way that is too complicated and the compiler is not required to determine whether or not it may be replaced by its compile-time constant value. This is because doing so would necessarily require inspecting the definition of the function (such as std::max in this example).

You can "help" the compiler by writing int(kTwo) and using that as the argument to std::max as opposed to kTwo itself; this prevents an odr-use since the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion is now immediately applied prior to calling the function. I don't think this is a great solution (I recommend one of the two solutions that I previously mentioned) but it has its uses (GoogleTest uses this in order to avoid introducing odr-uses in statements like EXPECT_EQ(2, kTwo)).

If you want to know more about how to understand the precise definition of odr-use, involving "potential results of an expression e...", that would be best addressed with a separate question.

tic/toc should be fine, but it looks like the timing is being skewed by memory pre-allocation.

I can reproduce similar timings to your MATLAB example, however

• On first run (clear workspace)

  • Loop approach takes 2.08 sec
  • Vectorised approach takes 1.04 sec
  • Vectorisation saves 50% execution time

• On second run (workspace not cleared)

  • Loop approach takes 2.55 sec
  • Vectorised approach takes 0.065 sec
  • Vectorisation "saves" 97.5% execution time

My guess would be that since the loop approach explicitly creates a new matrix via zeros, the memory is reallocated from scratch on every run and you don't see the speed improvement on subsequent runs.

However, when HH remains in memory and the HH=___ line outputs a matrix of the same size, I suspect MATLAB is doing some clever memory allocation to speed up the operation.

We can prove this theory with the following test:

Here's my current understanding, which could be incomplete or incorrect. A verification would be appreciated.

C++20 renamed strongly happens before to simply happens before, and introduced a new, more relaxed definition for strongly happens before, which imposes less ordering.

Simply happens before is used to reason about the presence of data races in your code. (Actually that would be the plain 'happens before', but the two are equivalent in absence of consume operations, the use of which is discouraged by the standard, since most (all?) major compilers treat them as acquires.)

The weaker strongly happens before is used to reason about the global order of seq-cst operations.

This change was introduced in proposal P0668R5: Revising the C++ memory model, which is based on the paper Repairing Sequential Consistency in C/C++11 by Lahav et al (which I didn't fully read).

The proposal explains why the change was made. Long story short, the way most compilers implement atomics on Power and ARM architectures turned out to be non-conformant in rare edge cases, and fixing the compilers had a performance cost, so they fixed the standard instead.

The change only affects you if you mix seq-cst operations with acquire-release operations on the same atomic variable (i.e. if an acquire operation reads a value from a seq-cst store, or a seq-cst operation reads a value from a release store).

If you don't mix operations in this manner, then you're not affected (i.e. can treat simply happens before and strongly happens before as equivalent).

The gist of the change is that the synchronization between a seq-cst operation and the corresponding acquire/release operation no longer affects the position of this specific seq-cst operation in the global seq-cst order, but the synchronization itself is still there.

This makes the seq-cst order for such seq-cst operations very moot, see below.

The proposal presents following example, and I'll try to explain my understanding of it:

In this case, the pending intent for the geofence needs to use FLAG_MUTABLE while the notification pending intent needs to use FLAG_IMMUTABLE. Unfortunately, they have not updated the documentation or the codelabs example for targeting Android 12 yet. Here's how I modified the codelabs geofence example to work.

First, update gradle to target SDK31.

In HuntMainActivity, change the geofencePendingIntent to:

After further consideration, I think a simpler solution for replacement should be using C# Reflection instead of relying on JSON. Tell me if it does not satisfy your need: