For now, I made this guide with some of the most easiest steps so that anyone can break that FRP lock using “Samsung FRP Tool” for their devices.How to Unlock Factory Reset Protection Without Combination Files:1 Step: Go to your PC and Download these 2 Software1st: Download Samsung FRP bypass tool with Key:2nd: Samsung USB Drivers:Now you must enable Download Mode in Samsung Phone:1: Power Off your phone: Press Volume Down + Home Button + Power Button At the same time3: Once you see WARNING ICON on you screen let go all the buttons. Xda samsung galaxy s6 frp bypass. By the way, let me just tel you one thing!The Google account details are very important to know which are synced in your device. Because whenever you hard reset or factory reset your device it will ask you to enter the right Google account details. Table of Contents.First thing first, I won’t tel you to use any OTG Cable, RealTerm software or Odin for this latest FRP bypass lock 2019 method.Not only that you also don’t need to use Combination File. As for this method we are going to use “FRP bypass tool” which is latest version Octopus Samsung FRP unlock tool.This method is beyond all other methods as you don’t need to cover all those step-by-step long procedures.(But they are still very helpful) to unlock Samsung Galaxy devices.

Lua Coding Guide
Lua C++ Performance Comparison Tool

Philosophy	1) Benchmark language implementations, not individual programs (simple tasks with few pitfalls). 2) Benchmark one language a time, not a mixture of languages (no non-standard libraries in other languages; no language extension).
CPU	Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5440 @ 2.83GHz
Memory	16GB
OS	Debian GNU/Linux 5.0
Source code	https://github.com/attractivechaos/plb (MIT licensed)
Note on update	The benchmark was originally conducted in June, 2011.The results for a few implementations have been updated since then, but others have not. The original results can be found at here.The picture below is for the old results.

Lua is more dynamic than Wren which makes its job harder. Lua also tries very hard to be compatible across a wide range of hardware and compilers. If you have a C89 compiler for it, odds are very good that you can run Lua on it. Wren cares about compatibility, but it requires C99 or C98 and IEEE double precision floats. This is a performance comparison of many web application frameworks executing fundamental tasks such as JSON serialization, database access, and server-side template composition. Each framework is operating in a realistic production configuration.

sudoku:t	CPU time in seconds for solving 20x50 Sudokus (20 extremely hard Sudokus repeated 50 times) using an algorithm adapted from suexco. This algorithm is not the fastest, but it is very easy to reimplement. Note that 'sudoku' and 'matmul' evaluate the performance of the language itself. 'Patmch' and 'dict' below effectively evaluate the performance of libraries.
matmul:t	CPU time in seconds for multiplying two 1000x1000 matrics using the standard cubic-time algorithm. This benchmark evaluates the performance of nested loops with a simple inner loop, which is frequent in scientific computing.
matmul:m	Memory in megabytes for multiplying two 1000x1000 matrics using the standard cubic-time algorithm.
patmch:1t	CPU seconds for finding lines matching regexp '([a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9])://([^ /]+)(/?[^ ])' in this file. This benchmark evaluates the performance of regex matching common in the context of biological sequence analyses. The uncompressed text file is copied to /dev/shm to avoid I/O overhead. For C, reading the input file line by line with fgets() takes 0.1 CPU second.
patmch:2t	CPU seconds for finding lines matching '([a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9])://([^ /]+)(/?[^ ])\|([^ @]+)@([^ @]+)' in this file. This benchmark evaluates the performance given the '\|' regex operator which is known to hurt back-tracking based regex matching algorithms.
dict:t	CPU seconds for counting the occurrence of each distinct string among 5 million strings. The average occurrence is 4. This benchmark evaluates the efficiency of associative arrays. The strings are generated by this program. For C, reading the input file line by line takes 0.3 CPU second.
dict:m	Memory in megabytes for counting the occurrence of each distinct string among 5 million strings.

Implementation	Lang	sudoku:t	matmul:t	matmul:m	patmch:1t	patmch:2t	dict:t	dict:m
ICC-12.0.3	C	1.0	1.8	31.8	1.6	4.1	3.0	52.6
GCC-4.3.2	C	1.0	2.3	31.7	1.7	4.5	3.0	52.6
Clang@LLVM-2.9	C	1.0	2.3	31.7	1.8	4.1	3.0	52.6
Java@JRE-1.6.0_25	Java	1.7	2.6	67.1	6.8	13.4	6.7	314.8
C#@Mono-2.10.1	C#	3.8	8.9	40.6	15.7	45.1	5.2	113.9
6g-20110424	Go	2.3	3.1	38.2	21.4	56.1	4.7	154.5
GDC-0.24	D	1.1	3.3	33.9	999.9	999.9	3.1	92.4
LDC-20110428@LLVM-2.9	D	1.1	2.4	31.4	999.9	999.9	999.9	999.9
V8-r8384	Javascript	3.7	2.6	141.6	1.7	3.0	7.3	97.3
JaegarMonkey-a95d42642281	Javascript	18.1	16.4	35.8	1.9	2.8	9.3	274.6
LuaJIT-2.0.1 (JIT-on)	Lua	3.7	2.5	33.2	6.2	999.9	4.5	123.8
LuaJIT-2.0.1 (JIT-off)	Lua	15.9	20.8	33.0	6.2	999.9	4.6	123.6
llvm-lua-1.3.1@LLVM-2.8	Lua	26.9	31.1	73.4	6.8	999.9	5.2	164.0
Lua-5.1.4	Lua	50.5	68.3	65.4	6.2	999.9	5.7	197.6
Perl-5.12.2	Perl	121.2	230.3	225.6	0.5	12.6	6.3	219.9
PyPy-1.4.1	Python	19.5	8.5	84.1	4.0	7.3	12.3	236.0
CPython-3.2	Python	119.9	121.9	93.2	5.7	13.8	5.1	154.1
CPython-2.7.1	Python	113.9	153.9	91.3	5.5	12.6	4.1	112.6
IronPython-2.7@Mono-2.10.1	Python	100.9	202.7	190.2	21.9	49.9	13.6	188.6
Jython-2.5.2@JRE-1.6.0_25	Python	136.3	731.4	355.6	43.2	125.0	12.3	457.0
Shedskin-0.9@GCC-4.3.2	Python	4.4	3.7	50.4	1.1	11.0	6.9	331.1
R-2.13.0	R	999.9	1736.3	57.2	34.6	47.7	999.9	999.9
JRuby-1.6.1@JRE-1.6.0_25	Ruby	71.1	238.2	342.5	5.5	23.1	18.1	436.9
IronRuby-1.1.1@Mono-2.10.1	Ruby	249.3	510.0	176.0	25.5	54.5	39.6	367.2
Ruby-1.9.2p180	Ruby	98.0	628.4	196.

Lua C++ Performance Comparison