vex | modern dialog library | Frontend Framework library

The difference is that your first snippet declares a function that exists globally; all your other declarations are of local entities.
(Note that even if the declaration were valid, you couldn't call that function, since it can't exist.)

In the last snippet, closure is not a type, so it can't be a declaration.

There mulitple ways to tackle the problem.

Collision detection can be coarse: less accurate but faster (and simpler) or detailed (e.g. pixel level precision) but slower (and more complex).

In terms of simple collision detection two options could rectangle or circle intersections.

Rectangle intersection can be implemented manually or using Rectangle's intersects() method.

Circle intersection is trivial: if the distance(dist()) between the 1st circle's center and 2nd circle's center is smaller than the two radii then they must intersect.

here's a basic example illustrating circle intersection:

There are several issues here:

1. You should add waits. Preferably Expected Conditions explicit waits.
2. You are using a wrong locator for price element
3. Since there are multiple offers there you should iterate over the results in a loop.
4. Variable names should be lowercased according to accepted convention.

I think your code should be something like this:

I was a fool. clang gave me an answer, and why didn't I notice it?

I figured out what was causing this, but it is a bit weird.

So clearly this was an issue inside a template, however nothing inside the scope of templates involved contained code that wasn't use elsewhere that was still working fine in IE11.

The template chain;

The str function returns the string by value. That means each call to str gives you a new string object, and your iterators are pointing to those temporary strings, not the string that is the buffer for the stringstream. This cant work, because the iterators need to point into the same object, not different objects that have the same value.

Only a few specific GPR instructions have VEX encodings, primarily the BMI1/BMI2 instructions that were added after AVX already existed. See the list in Table 2-28, which has ANDN, BEXTR, BLSI, BLSMSK, BLSR, BZHI, MULX, PDEP, PEXT, RORX, SARX, SHLX, SHRX, as well as the same list in 5.1.16.1. For example, andn's manual entry lists only a VEX encoding, and's manual entry doesn't list any.

So Intel (unfortunately) didn't introduce a brand new three-operand alternate encoding for the entire instruction set. They just introduced a few specific instructions that take three operands and use VEX for it. In some cases these have similar or equivalent functionality to an existing instruction, e.g. SHLX for SHL with a variable count, and so effectively provide a three-operand version of the previous two-operand instruction, but only in those special cases. There are not equivalent instructions across the board.

The "old style" two-operand form remains the only version of the add instruction. However, as fuz points out in comments, lea can be a good way to add two registers and write the result to a third, subject to some restrictions on operand size.

See Using LEA on values that aren't addresses / pointers? for more general things LEA can do, like copy-and-add a constant to a register, or shift-and-add. Compilers already know this and will use lea where appropriate, any time it saves instructions. (Or with some tune options like -mtune=atom for old in-order Atom, will use lea even when they could have used add.)

If more flexible encodings of common integer instructions other than add existed, like and/xor/sub, gcc -O3 -march=skylake would already be using them in its own asm output, without needing inline asm. Or if alternative instructions could get the job done, like lea for add, would be doing that, so it makes sense to look at compiler output to see what tricks it knows. Trying it yourself would make more sense as something to play around with in a stand-alone .s file that just makes an exit system call, or just to single-step, removing the complexity of using inline asm. (GAS by default doesn't restrict instruction-sets. gcc -march=skylake doesn't pass that on to the assembler, as.)

In your inline asm, your c operand should be to output-only: =r instead of +r. The old value is overwritten, so there's no need to tell the compiler to produce it as an input. (Like you said, you want c = a+b not c += a+b.)

Using a single lea as the asm template means you don't need a =&r early-clobber output, because your asm will read all its inputs before writing that output. In your case, having it as an input/output was probably stopping the compiler from choosing the same register as one of the inputs, which could have broken with mov; add.

Try this:

I think the main issue here is that your JSON and XML values are being controlled in too many places. The v-models, the watchers, and the CodeMirror events.

I have changed your code and made CodeMirror the main controller of the values. You can see the result here: CodeSandbox

To prevent the parsing loop, I've compared the new values with the ones saved in the store. If they are the same, then the value has been set by ourselves. If they differ, then the user has changed it and we should try to parse.