infer | A static analyzer for Java , C , C , and Objective-C | Code Analyzer library

I have faced up with same problem. Try following: Open *.xib of your UITableViewCell as source code (Context menu / "Open As" / "Source Code"). Locate "tableViewCell" and "tableViewCellContentView" tags, delete its "translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints" attributes (with values), delete its subtags "autoresizingMask" if present.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/bDSJ3.png

UPDATE

Generally, Tensorflow is the only network with the shape NHWC while most others use NCHW. Thus, the OpenVINO Inference Engine satisfies the majority of networks and uses the NCHW layout. Model must be converted to NCHW layout in order to work with Inference Engine.

The conversion of the native model format into IR involves the process where the Model Optimizer performs the necessary transformation to convert the shape to the layout required by the Inference Engine (N,C,H,W). Using the --input_shape parameter with the correct input shape of the model should suffice.

Besides, most TensorFlow models are trained with images in RGB order. In this case, inference results using the Inference Engine samples may be incorrect. By default, Inference Engine samples and demos expect input with BGR channels order. If you trained your model to work with RGB order, you need to manually rearrange the default channels order in the sample or demo application or reconvert your model using the Model Optimizer tool with --reverse_input_channels argument.

I suggest you validate this by inferring your model with the Hello Classification Python Sample instead since this is one of the official samples provided to test the model's functionality.

You may refer to this "Intel Math Kernel Library for Deep Neural Network" for deeper explanation regarding the input shape.

If I understand correctly, returning an impl would result in slower code, calling function pointers instead of compiling things down to simple loops. Right?

Nope. Returning impl Iterator is exactly the same, codegen-wise, as returning Map<...>>>.¹ The difference is twofold:

• Changing the return type of neighbours does not require changing its signature, so impl Iterator is forward-compatible with changes to its return type.
• impl Iterator won't unify with other opaque impl Iterator types, even if they happen to have the same underlying type. (In simple terms: the compiler won't allow you to make a Vec of impl Iterators from different sources, even if all those opaque types are the same concrete type.)

Neither of these differences has any influence on code generation or the compiler's ability to inline anything, so go ahead and use impl Iterator.

There is one case where you must still use indirect dispatch (dyn Iterator): when the function neighbours is itself part of a trait, the impl Trait syntax is not yet available (as of 1.59). The best way to solve this at the moment is to return Box. (Note, however, that doesn't mean every call will be dynamically dispatched; the call to .next() will be, but everything "inside" that still uses easily-optimized static dispatch.)

• What is the correct way to return an Iterator (or any other trait)?
• How do I return an instance of a trait from a method?
• https://stackoverflow.com/a/39490692/3650362 (when the method is part of a trait)

¹ Note that in order to actually return Map<...>>>, you would still have to use impl Trait to represent the closures, since they have anonymous types.

The "correct" thing to do would be to infer never[] for the empty array literal [], because the type of an array literal is the join of the types of its elements, and never is the join of an empty set.

However, since inferring never[] is usually not what the user intends when writing const a = [], this particular case received a very special treatment in the compiler, and now it starts by implicitly inferring any[], and then refining the type based on the subsequent control flow.

There does not seem to be any deeper meaning behind it: it's just what turns out to be the most useful in most cases.

I would use key remapping here, since remapping a key to never will remove it from the resulting type:

You could somewhat rehydrate the original types with a type predicate:

You can use std::vformat / fmt::vformat instead.

Python uses the symbol - as both a unary (-x) and a binary (x-y) operator. These have different operator precedence.

In specific, the ordering wrt // is:

• unary -
• binary //
• binary -

By introducing a 0 as 0--3//2, the first - is a binary - and is applied last. Without a leading 0 as --3//2, both - are unary and applied together.

The corresponding evaluation/syntax tree is roughly like this, evaluating nodes at the bottom first to use them in the parent node: