academic | A Jekyll theme for academia | Theme library

Is there a possibility that the below code could fail due to the user denying the SCHEDULE_EXACT_ALARM permission after the permissions check and before the alarm is scheduled?

Note: I have never experienced this issue, this is purely an academic excersize.

I'm trying to write a PCLMULQDQ-optimized CRC-32 implementation. The specific CRC-32 variant is for one that I don't own, but am trying to support in library form. In crcany model form, it has the following parameters:

width=32 poly=0xaf init=0xffffffff refin=false refout=false xorout=0x00000000 check=0xa5fd3138 (Omitted residue which I believe is 0x00000000 but honestly don't know what it is)

A basic non-table-based/bitwise implementation of the algorithm (as generated by crcany) is:

This is more of an academic question. In a MySQL database, I know tinyint(M) and its differences from tinyint(1) have already been discussed on this forum, but I'm wondering something else. Could a column "REVIEWED TINYINT(5) be used to store the values of 5 different boolean checkboxes in the frontend form? I'm thinking along the lines of treating it as an array. If so, how would they be referenced? Would something like REVIEWED(3) or REVIEWED[3] work for referencing their elements? Would there be a syntax for checking whether all their elements were 1 or 0 (or null)?

I have a developer account as an academic and my profile page on twitter has Elevated on top of it, but when I use Tweepy to access the tweets, it only scrapes tweets from 7 days ago. How can I extend my access up to 2006?

This is my code:

I am learning C++ using the books listed here. In particular, i read about overloading. So after reading i am trying out different examples to clear my concept further. One such example whose output i am unable to understand is given below:

I have (had) some Ruby code which for historical reasons is (was) essentially

Note that this is purely an academic question, from a language lawyer perspective. It's about the theoretically safest way to accomplish the conversion.

Suppose I have a void* and I need to convert it to a 64-bit integer. The reason is that this pointer holds the address of a faulting instruction; I wish to report this to my backend to be logged, and I use a fixed-size protocol - so I have precisely 64 bits to use for the address.

The cast will of course be implementation defined. I know my platform (64-bit Windows) allows this conversion, so in practice it's fine to just reinterpret_cast(address).

But I'm wondering: from a theoretical standpoint, is it any safer to first convert to uintptr_t? That is: static_cast(reinterpret_cast(address)). https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/reinterpret_cast says (emphasis mine):

Unlike static_cast, but like const_cast, the reinterpret_cast expression does not compile to any CPU instructions (except when converting between integers and pointers or on obscure architectures where pointer representation depends on its type).

So, in theory, pointer representation is not defined to be anything in particular; going from pointer to uintptr_t might theoretically perform a conversion of some kind to make the pointer representable as an integer. After that, I forcibly extract the lower 64 bits. Whereas just directly casting to uint64_t would not trigger the conversion mentioned above, and so I'd get a different result.

Is my interpretation correct, or is there no difference whatsoever between the two casts in theory as well?

FWIW, on a 32-bit system, apparently the widening conversion to unsigned 64-bit could sign-extend, as in this case. But on 64-bit I shouldn't have that issue.

For academic reasons I want to implement an example which select a template if a non type template parameter fulfills a given criteria. As example I want to have a function which is only defined for odd integer numbers.

It can be done like:

I've been following the instructions here to install the R blogdown package and get my new site running. When I get to the step where I run serve_site(), I get the following error message: