search for: 0.0018

Did something change with exception handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are showing slower compile times for many tests. Ciao, Duncan. On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > lab-mini-03__O0-g__clang_DEV__x86_64 test results > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283?compare_to=1278&baseline=999> > > Run Order Start Time Duration >

How to set the nlme() function to return the answer without the intercept parametrization? #========================================================================================= library(nlme) Soybean[1:3, ] (fm1Soy.lis <- nlsList(weight ~ SSlogis(Time, Asym, xmid, scal),                        data = Soybean)) (fm1Soy.nlme <- nlme(fm1Soy.lis)) fm2Soy.nlme <- update(fm1Soy.nlme,

Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem? -bw On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Did something change with exception handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are > showing slower compile times for many tests. > > Ciao, Duncan. > > On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu

Hi Bill, > Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem? I don't see any relevant LLVM changes, so I guess clang C++ compilation slowed down due to some clang changes. I'm not going to investigate this. Ciao, Duncan. > > -bw > > On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > >> Did

On Jul 5, 2012, at 1:33 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Bill, > >> Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem? > > I don't see any relevant LLVM changes, so I guess clang C++ compilation slowed > down due to some clang changes. I'm not going to investigate this. > Crumbs. John, Do you know of anything that went into

On 23.11.2012, at 15:12, john skaller <skaller at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > On 23/11/2012, at 5:46 PM, Sean Silva wrote: > >> Adding LLVMdev, since this is intimately related to the optimization passes. >> >>> I think this is roughly because some function level optimisations are >>> worse than O(N) in the number of instructions. >>

Target: FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE on i386 autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: i386-unknown-freebsd6.2 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release build. llvm-gcc 4.2 from source.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:42:18PM -0700, Tanya Lattner wrote: > The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: > http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ > > [...] > > 2) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the llvm-gcc4.0 source. > Compile everything. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite > (make TEST=nightly report). > > Send

LLVMers, The 2.2 prerelease is now available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ If anyone can help test this release, I ask that you do the following: 1) Build llvm and llvm-gcc (or use a binary). You may build release (default) or debug. You may pick llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, or both. 2) Run 'make check'. 3) In llvm-test, run 'make TEST=nightly report'. 4) When

Dear list members, I have a 2-factor ANOVA where the summary.lm output looks like this (using treatment contrasts): Value Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 0.0389 0.0220 1.7695 0.0817 as.factor(Block)1 0.0156 0.0066 2.3597 0.0215 as.factor(Block)2 -0.0018 0.0037 -0.4857 0.6289 as.factor(Block)3 -0.0007 0.0026 -0.2812 0.7795

Dear users, I tried to fit an AR(2) model to data. This the result: > arima(vw,c(3,0,0)) Call: arima(x = vw, order = c(3, 0, 0)) Coefficients: ar1 ar2 ar3 intercept 0.1052 -0.0102 -0.1203 0.0099 s.e. 0.0337 0.0339 0.0338 0.0018 sigma^2 estimated as 0.002934: log likelihood = 1293.16, aic = -2576.33 Now, ar2 is not significantly different from

Dear friends, I used R and SAS to analyze my data through generalized linear model, and there is some difference between them. Results from R: glm(formula = snail ~ grass + gheight + humidity + altitude + soiltemr + airtemr, family = Gamma) Deviance Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1.23873 -0.41123 -0.08703 0.24339 1.21435 Coefficients:

Hi r-sers, I have a data of relative frequencies for the interval of 0-20, 20-40,...380-400.  I would like the two data on the same graph using the same x-axis label.  My question is how to get a smooth curve using kernel density code if it possible for this data.   > cbind(rel_obs,rel_gen)           rel_obs rel_gen  [1,] 0.000000000  0.0000  [2,] 0.092534175  0.0712  [3,] 0.105152471  0.1092

Hi, if I dermine the break points using the hist() function and then try to re-use these in a new histogram, R fails. Here is an example of the problem: ##First, plot a histogram: data(islands) foo <- hist(islands,freq=T) ##Now, try plot it again, with the previously determined break points: hist(islands,breaks=foo$breaks,freq=T) ##... this lead to the warning message: Warning message:

Hello at all, working with a dataset I try to optimize a non-linear function with constraint. test<-read.csv2("C:/Users/Herb/Desktop/Opti/NORM.csv") fkt<- function(x){ a<-c(0) s<-c(0) #Minimizing square error for(j in 1:107){ s<-(test[j,2] - (x[1] * test[j,3]) - (x[2] * test[j,4]) - (x[3]*test[j,5]) - (x[4]*test[j,6]) - (x[5]*test[j,7]))^2 a<- a+s} a<-as.double(a)

Hello, it seems that the main results of survival analysis with package survival are shown only as side effects of the print method. If I compute e.g. a Kaplan-Meier estimate by > km.survdur<-survfit(s.survdur) then I can simply print the results by > km.survdur Call: survfit(formula = s.survdur) n events median 0.95LCL 0.95UCL 100.0 58.0 46.8 41.0 79.3 Is

Using the small reproducible example below, I'd like to know if one can somehow use the matrix "sig" (defined below) to add a black outline (with lwd=2) to all pixels with a corresponding value of 1 in the matrix 'sig'? So for example, in the ggplot2 plot below, the pixel located at [1,3] would be outlined by a black square since the value at sig[1,3] == 1. This is my first

Target: FreeBSD 7.0-RC1 on amd64. autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: x86_64-unknown-freebsd7.0 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Target: amd64-undermydesk-freebsd Configured with: FreeBSD/amd64 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD] [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release

LLVMers, The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ I'm looking for members of the LLVM community to test the 2.1 release. There are 2 ways you can help: 1) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the appropriate llvm-gcc4.0 binary. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite (make TEST=nightly report). 2) Download

Dear R users, I have been having problems getting believable estimates from anova on a model fit from lmer. I get the impression that F is being greatly underestimated, as can be seen by running the example I have given below. First an explanation of what I'm trying to do. I am trying to fit a glmm with binomial errors to some data. The experiment involves 10 shadehouses, divided between