cool | cool special effects collected on the Internet will be

When I do this it works (these are the last 4 lines before the end of a method TWEAK. However, my first attempt had no line #3 and failed because %!columns was empty...

...

Previously in Rails when using the button_to tag, it was possible to use a confirmation dialog like this

...

I wrote this code:

...

I try to get a button that has this cool effect of the border radius changing when tapped (like in the Android 12 default calculator application) while also keeping the button's ripple effect.

What I thought would work was this:

...

So I have a c# class library project that I only intend to use on windows. It contains some classes that use the System.Drawing.Image class which is only available on windows. After upgrading to VS2022 and setting the target framework to .NET 6.0 I'm seeing a bunch of warnings that say CA1416 "This call site is reachable on all platforms. 'SomeClass.SomeMethod' is only supported on: 'windows'. See screenshot below for some examples:

In some sense, it's cool that VS2022 has scanned the library and found all the platform specific code that I'm using in the library. But I'd like to tell VS that I only plan to use the library on windows and it can mute all those warnings.

First I checked the Target Platform options in the properties of the project but didn't seen any windows specific targets.

Then I decided to edit the project's .csproj directly and changed the Target framework from

net6.0
to
net6.0-windows

But sadly even after a recompile, that didn't make the warnings go away either. So then I did some reading on the CA1416 warnings and sure enough it says in the Microsoft Docs that the TFM is ignored for assessing this warning however VS does add an attribute to the project based on the TFM that influences this warning, but it only does so if the project is configured to generate the AssemblyInfo.cs file on the fly. But alas, my project's AssemblyInfo.cs is maintained as a actual file rather then having it auto generated at build time.

So at this point, I'm ready to punt the ball and just disable CA1416 warnings for my project. So in the project's .proj file I added CA1416 for both the release and debug builds like so:

One would think that would be the end of those pesky warnings. (sigh) As it turns out, after rebuilding the project the warnings still show up. Got any suggestions? I'm all ears.

...

I've successfully written my application using Axios to fetch content. As of now, it's set up to fetch content when certain events happen (like the submit button has been clicked.) However, I'm experimenting with Redux's RTK-Query solution. This package generates hooks and in their examples, they provide simple component-level examples that call the hooks on mount.

How can I leverage these rtk-hooks (and hooks in general) so I can tie them to behaviors like onClick, onSubmit, and conditional events? I'm aware this conflicts with the rules-of-hooks guidelines, but I can't imagine RTK-Query would be so limited as to only allow component-level onMount API calls.

some related articles I'm reading while I try to figure this out / wait for a helpful example:

• https://blog.logrocket.com/react-hooks-frustrations/
• https://redux-toolkit.js.org/rtk-query/usage/usage-without-react-hooks

The second article seems somewhat relevant but I feel like its beating too far off the path and is making question if it's even worth having rtk-query installed. I might as well just use axios since it can be used anywhere in my components and logic. Can someone educate me on how to approach this problem? I'm new to rtk-query, it seems really cool but it also seems really restrictive in its implementation approaches.

Here is an example of my api.ts slice: ...

Consider the following code, running on an ARM Cortex-A72 processor (optimization guide here). I have included what I expect are resource pressures for each execution port:

Instruction B I0 I1 M L S F0 F1 .LBB0_1: ldr q3, [x1], #16 0.5 0.5 1 ldr q4, [x2], #16 0.5 0.5 1 add x8, x8, #4 0.5 0.5 cmp x8, #508 0.5 0.5 mul v5.4s, v3.4s, v4.4s 2 mul v5.4s, v5.4s, v0.4s 2 smull v6.2d, v5.2s, v1.2s 1 smull2 v5.2d, v5.4s, v2.4s 1 smlal v6.2d, v3.2s, v4.2s 1 smlal2 v5.2d, v3.4s, v4.4s 1 uzp2 v3.4s, v6.4s, v5.4s 1 str q3, [x0], #16 0.5 0.5 1 b.lo .LBB0_1 1 Total port pressure 1 2.5 2.5 0 2 1 8 1

Although uzp2 could run on either the F0 or F1 ports, I chose to attribute it entirely to F1 due to high pressure on F0 and zero pressure on F1 other than this instruction.

There are no dependencies between loop iterations, other than the loop counter and array pointers; and these should be resolved very quickly, compared to the time taken for the rest of the loop body.

Thus, my intuition is that this code should be throughput limited, and considering the worst pressure is on F0, run in 8 cycles per iteration (unless it hits a decoding bottleneck or cache misses). The latter is unlikely given the streaming access pattern, and the fact that arrays comfortably fit in L1 cache. As for the former, considering the constraints listed on section 4.1 of the optimization manual, I project that the loop body is decodable in only 8 cycles.

Yet microbenchmarking indicates that each iteration of the loop body takes 12.5 cycles on average. If no other plausible explanation exists, I may edit the question including further details about how I benchmarked this code, but I'm fairly certain the difference can't be attributed to benchmarking artifacts alone. Also, I have tried to increase the number of iterations to see if performance improved towards an asymptotic limit due to startup/cool-down effects, but it appears to have done so already for the selected value of 128 iterations displayed above.

Manually unrolling the loop to include two calculations per iteration decreased performance to 13 cycles; however, note that this would also duplicate the number of load and store instructions. Interestingly, if the doubled loads and stores are instead replaced by single LD1/ST1 instructions (two-register format) (e.g. ld1 { v3.4s, v4.4s }, [x1], #32) then performance improves to 11.75 cycles per iteration. Further unrolling the loop to four calculations per iteration, while using the four-register format of LD1/ST1, improves performance to 11.25 cycles per iteration.

In spite of the improvements, the performance is still far away from the 8 cycles per iteration that I expected from looking at resource pressures alone. Even if the CPU made a bad scheduling call and issued uzp2 to F0, revising the resource pressure table would indicate 9 cycles per iteration, still far from actual measurements. So, what's causing this code to run so much slower than expected? What kind of effects am I missing in my analysis?

EDIT: As promised, some more benchmarking details. I run the loop 3 times for warmup, 10 times for say n = 512, and then 10 times for n = 256. I take the minimum cycle count for the n = 512 runs and subtract from the minimum for n = 256. The difference should give me how many cycles it takes to run for n = 256, while canceling out the fixed setup cost (code not shown). In addition, this should ensure all data is in the L1 I and D cache. Measurements are taken by reading the cycle counter (pmccntr_el0) directly. Any overhead should be canceled out by the measurement strategy above.

...

I am using ANTLR 4.9.2 to parse a grammar that represents assembly instructions.

...

I made the event guildBanAdd to unban specific ids, but I want it to unban only those ids that got banned, because for the ids that didn't get banned I get the error of an unknown ban.

...