modern | Free accessibility ready portfolio WordPress theme | Content Management System library

The problem is actually very complicated. Looking at its implementation, doesn't pass either the React ref or the role prop to the correct element. The correct element I believe is .scrollbar-content, which is very deeply nested and basically untouchable.

ETA: In case you thought of getting cheesy with document.querySelectorAll setAttribute shenanigans, that will not work. The ref also needs to point at the correct element, and I don't think that's codeable on the workspace side.

The cleanest solution I can think of is to use Yarn 3 (👍) and patch simplebar-react yourself, passing the needed props to .scrollbar-content. Then you do:

The Compose application is designed to be used in a single-activity architecture with no fragments.

You can still have multiple activities or fragments and use setContent in each of them, but in this case the transfer of data between activities falls on your shoulders. Use this approach if you're adding new Compose screens to an existing application built the old way.

But with Compose, it's much easier to do all the navigation within a single activity using Compose Navigation. Much less code, better performance due to no unnecessary code layers, easy to transfer data, etc.

To work with the view lifecycle, check out compose side-effects:

1. LaunchedEffect can be used to execute an action when the view appears. It also runs on a coroutine context that is bound to the current composable: you can easily run suspend functions, and when the view disappears from view hierarchy - the coroutine will be canceled.
2. DisposableEffect can be used to subscribe to/unsubscribe from callbacks.

When you rotate the screen, all effects will restart no matter which key you passed.

To write you can do something like this:

Check out if this works in R 3.6.

Below script can automate least part of your problem by writing all function sources into separate and appropriately named .R files. This code will also take care of hidden functions.

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.

-march native means -march $MY_HARDWARE. We have no idea what hardware you have. For you, that would be -march=skylake-avx512 (SkyLake SP) The results could be reproduced by specifying your hardware architecture explicitly.

It's quite possible that the errors will decrease with more modern instructions, specifically Fused-Multiply-and-Add (FMA). This is the operation a*b+c, but rounded once instead of twice. That saves one rounding error.

Using std::bit_cast:

Try it online!

In scipy's PyPI page, it looks like scipy doesn't support 3.10 as the meta says

the reason is cacerts of the os are outdated

To update them you need to do the following