C | various algorithms in mathematics , machine learning | Learning library

You will have to clear the npx cache to make it work.

You can locate the location of the folder where create-react-app is installed using npm ls -g create-react-app.

Also, to clear the cache, refer to this answer in How can I clear the central cache for `npx`?

Issue:

The issue raises after .NET 6 migration. There's a new feature that blocks multiple files from being copied to the same target directory with the same file name. See https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/compatibility/sdk/6.0/duplicate-files-in-output

Solution #1 (workaround):

You can add the following build property to all your publishable (*.Web) projects' *.csproj files. This property will bypass this check and works as previously, in .NET5.

I'm not sure what you're using to code, but in order to set it in Android Studio, open the manifest of your project and under the "activity" section, put android:exported="true"(or false if that is what you prefer). I have attached an example.

Although I can't provide a formal definition of why/how the rounding modes were chosen as they were, the citation about compatibility with the % operator, which you have included, does make sense when you consider that % is not quite the same thing in C++ and Python.

In C++, it is the remainder operator, whereas, in Python, it is the modulus operator – and, when the two operands have different signs, these aren't necessarily the same thing. There are some fine explanations of the difference between these operators in the answers to: What's the difference between “mod” and “remainder”?

Now, considering this difference, the rounding (truncation) modes for integer division have to be as they are in the two languages, to ensure that the relationship you quoted, (m/n)*n + m%n == m, remains valid.

Here are two short programs that demonstrate this in action (please forgive my somewhat naïve Python code – I'm a beginner in that language):

C++:

It looks like GCC's naïveté about store-forwarding stalls is hurting its auto-vectorization strategy here. See also Store forwarding by example for some practical benchmarks on Intel with hardware performance counters, and What are the costs of failed store-to-load forwarding on x86? Also Agner Fog's x86 optimization guides.

(gcc -O3 enables -ftree-vectorize and a few other options not included by -O2, e.g. if-conversion to branchless cmov, which is another way -O3 can hurt with data patterns GCC didn't expect. By comparison, Clang enables auto-vectorization even at -O2, although some of its optimizations are still only on at -O3.)

It's doing 64-bit loads (and branching to store or not) on pairs of ints. This means, if we swapped the last iteration, this load comes half from that store, half from fresh memory, so we get a store-forwarding stall after every swap. But bubble sort often has long chains of swapping every iteration as an element bubbles far, so this is really bad.

(Bubble sort is bad in general, especially if implemented naively without keeping the previous iteration's second element around in a register. It can be interesting to analyze the asm details of exactly why it sucks, so it is fair enough for wanting to try.)

Anyway, this is pretty clearly an anti-optimization you should report on GCC Bugzilla with the "missed-optimization" keyword. Scalar loads are cheap, and store-forwarding stalls are costly. (Can modern x86 implementations store-forward from more than one prior store? no, nor can microarchitectures other than in-order Atom efficiently load when it partially overlaps with one previous store, and partially from data that has to come from the L1d cache.)

Even better would be to keep buf[x+1] in a register and use it as buf[x] in the next iteration, avoiding a store and load. (Like good hand-written asm bubble sort examples, a few of which exist on Stack Overflow.)

If it wasn't for the store-forwarding stalls (which AFAIK GCC doesn't know about in its cost model), this strategy might be about break-even. SSE 4.1 for a branchless pmind / pmaxd comparator might be interesting, but that would mean always storing and the C source doesn't do that.

If this strategy of double-width load had any merit, it would be better implemented with pure integer on a 64-bit machine like x86-64, where you can operate on just the low 32 bits with garbage (or valuable data) in the upper half. E.g.,

You're going to need to update your compile SDK to 31. It sounds like it's currently set to 30. In your Gradle files there should be something like compileSdk in the android block.

Bump that up to 31. If that's an issue for some reason, you can also bump down your dependencies to versions that don't require that compile SDK version.

It does not default to zero. The sample answer is wrong. Undefined behaviour is undefined; the value may be 0, it may be 100. Accessing it may cause a seg fault, or cause your computer to be formatted.

As to why it's not an error, it's because C++ is not required to do bounds checking on arrays. You could use a vector and use the at function, which throws exceptions if you go outside the bounds, but arrays do not.

Updated answer 2021-11-16:

The following is mentioned in the official release notes for Chrome 96.

To disable Length Authoring Tools, navigate to this location in the DevTools and uncheck the checkbox:
Settings > Experiments > Enable CSS length authoring tools in the Styles pane.

The initial incentive to disable these tools has been greatly diminished because of this.

A chevron will now appear to the right of the hovered value instead of reacting to clicks to the entire unit portion of it.

Copy paste now also works as intended.

Conclusion:
It is now possible to disable the Length Authoring Tools, but you might no longer need to.

Old answer:

Fixes have been added to Chromium ( [1], [2], [3] ) that are slowly making their way to the stable release of Chrome.

But help is on its way...

Chrome 96 is scheduled to be released on November 16 2021 (source), or ~3 weeks after October 28 according to this official tweet. It will at least contain a revert to free text editing of css properties (source). Hopefully version 96 will address the issue completely, but if it doesn't then the next major release is scheduled for January 4 2021 (If this issue is unresolved by then somebody at Google should be fired).

As for now, Chrome Canary seems to have these fixes implemented and might be considered an alternative solution to the issue if you find the current state of Length Authoring Tools unbearable.

Please be advised that Chrome Canary can be quite unstable.

This question and answer will be edited and corrected once there are real fixes in the live stable version.

A constraint on the deduced auto type doesn't mean it needs to be a specific type, it means it needs to be one of a set of types that satisfy the constraint. Note that a constraint and a type are not the same thing, and they're not interchangeable.

e.g. a concept like std::integral constrains the deduced type to be an integral type, such as int or long, but not float, or std::string.

If I really need a std::integral datatype, couldn't I just omit the auto completely?

In principle, I suppose you could, but this would at the minimum lead to parsing difficulties. e.g. in a declaration like