search for: 0.0262

Displaying 17 results from an estimated 17 matches for "0.0262".

Did you mean: 0.026
2012 Sep 07
7
Producing a table with mean values
Hi All, I have a data set wit three size classes (pico, nano and micro) and 12 different sites (Seamounts). I want to produce a table with the mean and standard deviation values for each site. Seamount Pico Nano Micro Total_Ch 1 Off_Mount 1 0.0691 0.24200 0.00100 0.31210 2 Off_Mount 1 0.0938 0.00521 0.02060 0.11961 3 Off_Mount 1 0.1130 0.20000 0.06620 0.37920 4 Off_Mount 1
2004 Jun 04
1
Samba, LDAP und TLS
Hi List ;-) I consider my question to be rather simple one ... nevertheless I could not find an answer to it up to now. I have an OpenLDAP-server which is the user-db for an samba3-server. I want to use TLS for secure communication, so I created a ca for this as well as keys/certificates for my LDAP and samba-server. Informing the LDAP-server about its certificate/key is easy ... but how do I
2017 Jun 30
0
Multiple "scale_color_manual" statements in one plot (ggplot2, flexible legend challenge)
Dear list, I am facing an unusual situation where I need to create two sets of legends based on the color mapping. Can't get exactly what I want and really appreciate any advice from ggplot experts. Let's say I have the first dataset "df1" that draws some points and based on which a "loess" line with confidence interval is added. Then the second dataset
2009 Feb 08
0
Initial values of the parameters of a garch-Model
Dear all, I'm using R 2.8.1 under Windows Vista on a dual core 2,4 GhZ with 4 GB of RAM. I'm trying to reproduce a result out of "Analysis of Financial Time Series" by Ruey Tsay. In R I'm using the fGarch library. After fitting a ar(3)-garch(1,1)-model > model<-garchFit(~arma(3,0)+garch(1,1), analyse) I'm saving the results via > result<-model
2011 Feb 26
0
[LLVMdev] [MC] Removing relaxation control
On Feb 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola wrote: >>> Can someone else try to reproduce this? > > I tried gcc.c from > http://people.csail.mit.edu/smcc/projects/single-file-programs/ and the > difference is a bit more noticeable: > > -O0 -mno-relax-all > > real 0m13.182s > user 0m12.690s > sys 0m0.450s > > -O0 > > gcc.o is
2011 Feb 25
3
[LLVMdev] [MC] Removing relaxation control
>> Can someone else try to reproduce this? I tried gcc.c from http://people.csail.mit.edu/smcc/projects/single-file-programs/ and the difference is a bit more noticeable: -O0 -mno-relax-all real 0m13.182s user 0m12.690s sys 0m0.450s -O0 gcc.o is 10932968 bytes. real 0m12.969s user 0m12.520s sys 0m0.410s gcc.o is 11410552 bytes IMHO it would still be reasonable to switch to
2002 Oct 11
1
absurd computiation times of lme
Hi, i've been trying to apply the lme apprach to growth curves of children, but lme keeps running for ever and ever as soon as I use a reasonable basis. First Example: Data are 39 boys from the Berkeley growth study, each one measured 31 times at the ages of 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00 10.50 11.00 11.50 12.00 12.50 13.00 13.50
2017 Jun 21
1
fitting cosine curve
Using a more stable nonlinear modeling tool will also help, but key is to get the periodicity right. y=c(16.82, 16.72, 16.63, 16.47, 16.84, 16.25, 16.15, 16.83, 17.41, 17.67, 17.62, 17.81, 17.91, 17.85, 17.70, 17.67, 17.45, 17.58, 16.99, 17.10) t=c(7, 37, 58, 79, 96, 110, 114, 127, 146, 156, 161, 169, 176, 182, 190, 197, 209, 218, 232, 240) lidata <- data.frame(y=y, t=t) #I use the
2007 Sep 18
0
[LLVMdev] 2.1 Pre-Release Available (testers needed)
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
2013 Jul 28
0
[LLVMdev] IR Passes and TargetTransformInfo: Straw Man
Hi, Sean: I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a *BIG* change to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations. Attacking these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting
2008 Feb 03
0
[LLVMdev] 2.2 Prerelease available for testing
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.
2013 Jul 18
3
[LLVMdev] IR Passes and TargetTransformInfo: Straw Man
Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only
2015 Feb 26
5
[LLVMdev] [RFC] AArch64: Should we disable GlobalMerge?
Hi all, I've started looking at the GlobalMerge pass, enabled by default on ARM and AArch64. I think we should reconsider that, at least for AArch64. As is, the pass just merges all globals together, in groups of 4KB (AArch64, 128B on ARM). At the time it was enabled, the general thinking was "it's almost free, it doesn't affect performance much, we might as well use it".
2007 Sep 15
22
[LLVMdev] 2.1 Pre-Release Available (testers needed)
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
2014 Oct 11
10
[PATCH net-next RFC 0/3] virtio-net: Conditionally enable tx interrupt
Hello all: We free old transmitted packets in ndo_start_xmit() currently, so any packet must be orphaned also there. This was used to reduce the overhead of tx interrupt to achieve better performance. But this may not work for some protocols such as TCP stream. TCP depends on the value of sk_wmem_alloc to implement various optimization for small packets stream such as TCP small queue and auto
2014 Oct 11
10
[PATCH net-next RFC 0/3] virtio-net: Conditionally enable tx interrupt
Hello all: We free old transmitted packets in ndo_start_xmit() currently, so any packet must be orphaned also there. This was used to reduce the overhead of tx interrupt to achieve better performance. But this may not work for some protocols such as TCP stream. TCP depends on the value of sk_wmem_alloc to implement various optimization for small packets stream such as TCP small queue and auto
2008 Jan 24
6
[LLVMdev] 2.2 Prerelease available for testing
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