search for: 0.2200

Hi guys,   I have two data sets of prices: endprice0, endprice1   I use the Wilcox test:   wilcox.test(endprice0, endprice1, paired = TRUE, alternative = "two.sided",  conf.int = T, conf.level = 0.9)   The result is with V = 1819, p-value = 0.8812.   Then I calculated the z-value of the test: z-value = -2.661263. The corresponding p-value is: p-value = 0.003892, which is different from

I just upgraded our optimizer to LLVM 3.0 from 2.8 and noticed that the scalar replacement of aggregates pass takes a lot longer for some code. Has there been a performance regression in this pass, or does it do more work? LLVM 3.0: Total Execution Time: 1.0600 seconds (1.0526 wall clock) ---User Time--- --System Time-- --User+System-- ---Wall Time--- --- Name --- 0.5100

f <- (structure(list(X = structure(96:97, .Label = c("119DAmm", "119DN", "119DNN", "119DO", "119DOC", "119Flow", "119Nit", "119ON", "119OPhos", "119OrgP", "119Phos", "119TKN", "119TOC", "148DAmm", "148DN", "148DNN", "148DO",

On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 06:17:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > Hello: > > We used to orphan packets before transmission for virtio-net. This breaks > socket accounting and can lead serveral functions won't work, e.g: > > - Byte Queue Limit depends on tx completion nofication to work. > - Packet Generator depends on tx completion nofication for the last > transmitted

On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 06:17:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > Hello: > > We used to orphan packets before transmission for virtio-net. This breaks > socket accounting and can lead serveral functions won't work, e.g: > > - Byte Queue Limit depends on tx completion nofication to work. > - Packet Generator depends on tx completion nofication for the last > transmitted

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 06:17:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> Hello: >> >> We used to orphan packets before transmission for virtio-net. This >> breaks >> socket accounting and can lead serveral functions won't work, e.g: >> >> - Byte Queue Limit depends

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 06:17:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> Hello: >> >> We used to orphan packets before transmission for virtio-net. This >> breaks >> socket accounting and can lead serveral functions won't work, e.g: >> >> - Byte Queue Limit depends

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> > wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 06:17:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>> Hello: >>> We used to orphan packets before transmission for virtio-net. >>> This breaks >>>

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> > wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 06:17:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>> Hello: >>> We used to orphan packets before transmission for virtio-net. >>> This breaks >>>

Hi list, I'd like to make a factor with seven 1s and three 2s using the factor() function. That is, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 I will then bind this factor to the matrix below using cbind.data.frame(). 0.56 0.48 0.22 0.59 0.32 0.64 0.26 0.60 0.25 0.38 0.24 0.45 0.56 0.67 0.78 0.97 0.87 0.79 0.82 0.85 I am new to R and have been using various manuals and have made many attempts without

Hi, if I got it right then the survival-time we expect for a subject is the integral over the specific survival-function of the subject from 0 to t_max. If I have a trained cox-model and want to make a prediction of the survival-time for a new subject I could use survfit(coxmodel, newdata=newSubject) to estimate a new survival-function which I have to integrate thereafter. Actually I thought

Dear R-helpers, this mail is intended to mention a rather trange result and generate potential useful comments on it. I am not aware of another posts on this issue ( RSiteSearch("quasipoisson lmer version dispersion")). MUsing the exemple in the reference of the lmer function (in lme4 library) and turning it into a quasi-poisson or quasi-binomial analysis, we get different results,

Hello: We used to orphan packets before transmission for virtio-net. This breaks socket accounting and can lead serveral functions won't work, e.g: - Byte Queue Limit depends on tx completion nofication to work. - Packet Generator depends on tx completion nofication for the last transmitted packet to complete. - TCP Small Queue depends on proper accounting of sk_wmem_alloc to work. This

Hello: We used to orphan packets before transmission for virtio-net. This breaks socket accounting and can lead serveral functions won't work, e.g: - Byte Queue Limit depends on tx completion nofication to work. - Packet Generator depends on tx completion nofication for the last transmitted packet to complete. - TCP Small Queue depends on proper accounting of sk_wmem_alloc to work. This

Hi, LLVM 2.1-pre1 test results: Linux (SUSE) on x86 (P4) Release mode, but with assertions enabled LLVM srcdir == objdir # of expected passes 2250 # of expected failures 5 I ran the llvm-test suite on my desktop while I was also working on that PC, so don't put too much trust in the timing info. Especially during the "spiff" test the machine was swapping

G'Day Tanya, Is it too late to bring in the following patches to fix some major brokenness in the AuroraUX tool chain for 2.6? http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84468&r2=84469&view=diff&pathrev=84469 http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84265&r2=84266&view=diff&pathrev=84266

Hi Tanya, > 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects > directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a > pre-compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > 2) Run make check, report any failures (FAIL or unexpected pass). Note > that you need to

On Oct 20, 2009, at 6:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Tanya, > >> 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects >> directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre- >> compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. > > I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. > Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > Ok.

LLVMers, 2.6 pre-release2 is ready to be tested by the community. http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.6/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. To test llvm-gcc: 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre- compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. 2) Run make check,

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