search for: adjudicates

Someone needs to adjudicate on whether I add the #include of <cstdio> or not. I can't test this so, Paolo/Henrik/Jeff, please let me know if I need to add it. Thanks, Reid. On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 07:08, Jeff Cohen wrote: > But I compiled that under vc7.1 as it was! > > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:19:22 +0200 > Paolo Invernizzi <arathorn at fastwebnet.it> wrote: > >

I'll wait for the research. We should try, as much as possible, to make it work with just what the compiler provides and without third party packages. Thanks, reid. On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 07:46, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I added the include of cstudio and it fails with plain VC7.1; the file > does not exist. > > Add it for now. If it is impossible to build with VC7.1 and without

I added the include of cstudio and it fails with plain VC7.1; the file does not exist. Add it for now. If it is impossible to build with VC7.1 and without STLPort, then there really isn't a choice. I have to research the issue myself to see if it's possible to avoid using STLPort. On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:42:51 -0700 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > Someone needs

I have a situation where the parameter estimates from lrm identify a binary predictor variable ("X") as clearly non-significant (p>0.3), but the ANOVA of that same model gives X a chi^2-df rank of > 200, and adjudicates X and one interaction of X and a continuous measure as highly significant. The N is massive and X has two categories, each with > 100,000 observations. I would expect X to have a significant impact on the outcome. The full model includes a large number of continuous (coded with rcs with...

I checked right now that it compiles also with #include <iostream> Jeff, can you test it with plain VC? --- Paolo Invernizzi On Sep 24, 2004, at 4:52 PM, Reid Spencer wrote: > I'll wait for the research. We should try, as much as possible, to make > it work with just what the compiler provides and without third party > packages. > > Thanks, > > reid. > >

FWIW: 1. I agree that this is an idea worth considering. Especially now that R has become so widely used among practitioners who are neither especially software literate nor interested in poring over R manuals (as I did when I first learned R). They have explicit tasks to do and just want to get to them as directly as possible. 2. A partial reply to the (fair) criticism of those who criticize

Here you go, Ian...... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: G3RIR <g3rir@yahoo.com> Date: 05-Apr-2006 20:54 Subject: [dmuars] Eh up - March 144 results altered To: dmuars@yahoogroups.com What's going on here. The results of the MArch 144 UKAC have been re-published and we have lost out considerably. Either I don't understand the rules or we have been robbed We scored

All, I'm pleased to announce that we will be holding a 2007 LLVM Developer's Meeting in a few months. This is a great opportunity for everyone to share ideas, plan the future, and get to know one another. The poll taken at the end of last year indicates a strong interest in such a meeting. This is just an announcement that the meeting will go forward. Further details will be forthcoming.

OK. I strongly support that sentiment. Paolo, could you send me your procedure for building under Windows? I haven't tried to build anything but System/Win32 so far. On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:52:23 -0700 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > I'll wait for the research. We should try, as much as possible, to make > it work with just what the compiler provides and without

But I compiled that under vc7.1 as it was! On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:19:22 +0200 Paolo Invernizzi <arathorn at fastwebnet.it> wrote: > Adding an include for std::remove under vc7.1 > > --- > Paolo Invernizzi >

>>>> "The documentation aims to be accurate, not necessarily clear." > I notice that none of the critics > in this thread have offered improvements on what is there. This issue is as old as documented things. With software it is particularly nasty, especially when we want the software to function across many platforms. Duncan has pointed out that critics need to step

Adding an include for std::remove under vc7.1 --- Paolo Invernizzi -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: diff.txt URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20040924/e1ca1218/attachment.txt>

I am very interested in such a distributed documentation editing project, and have some thoughts on how to make it workable for both volunteers and core members who would need to review. I'm willing to lead or colead such a project, if someone stepping up would be a useful first step, and I'm also willing to host a wiki, although I think something like GitHub is probably the best place.

Paolo Invernizzi wrote: > There was a similar problem some time ago, and was resolved with alloca. > I think it's a better solution to use the stack instead of the heap... I tend to agree, but the constructors won't get called if it's an object array -- anyway, this particular case there was no objects, just pointers and bools so alloca should be fine. I'll leave it to

All, This message contains important information about the June 2007 LLVM Developer's Meeting. If you plan to go (or even if you don't), please read it carefully. Nothing is set in stone yet so if you have a suggestion, please make it! Your feedback is wanted. Thank you to all who participated in the Conference Poll we held at the end of last year. It let us know your preferences and

> On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Sarah Goslee <sarah.goslee at gmail.com> wrote: > > I am very interested in such a distributed documentation editing > project, and have some thoughts on how to make it workable for both > volunteers and core members who would need to review. > > I'm willing to lead or colead such a project, if someone stepping up > would be a

Hi Everyone, Numerous people have been bringing up challenges with consensus driven decision making in the LLVM community. After considering this and seeing the frustrations it is causing many people, I think we should make a formal process change to help improve decision making going forward. Here is the outline of the draft proposal