search for: approachability

Thanks for both the mapply and array approaches! However, although intended to generate the same result, they don't: # mapply approach n = 3 sa <- rnorm(n,0.8,0.1) so <- rnorm(n,0.5,0.1) m <- rnorm(n,1.2,0.1) mats = mapply(function(sa1, so1, m1) matrix(c(0,sa1*m1,so1,sa1),2,2,byrow=T), sa, so, m, SIMPLIFY = FALSE) print(mats) [[1]] ????????? [,1]????? [,2] [1,] 0.0000000

Hi there, Thank Nick for kindly reviewing the patch. Here is the link to the source code of the PTX backend; it would help Nick review the patch. http://lime.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~clchiou/llvm-ptx-backend.tar.gz The source code from above link is a working prototype. So it will not be upstreamed as is; I will refactor and add unimplemented features while upstreaming it. That said, the source code

Che-Liang Chiou <clchiou at gmail.com> writes: > My implementation of predicated instructions is similar to ARM > backend. I traced ARM and PowerPC backend for reference. Cool. > If, David, you were saying a implementation of predication in LLVM IR, > I didn't do that. It was partly because I was not (and is still not) > very familiar with LLVM's design; so I

Che-Liang Chiou <clchiou at gmail.com> writes: > Hi there, > > Thank Nick for kindly reviewing the patch. Here is the link to the > source code of the PTX backend; it would help Nick review the patch. > http://lime.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~clchiou/llvm-ptx-backend.tar.gz Great! > I decided to take the code generator approach (referred to as codegen > approach) rather than C

Saludos a todos. Tengo que aplicar: Two-Step Approach (patch approach) Hybrid Approach (give away approach) De acuerdo al libro de Gaston Sanchez "PLS Path Modeling with R". ¿Alguien puede apoyarme? -- *César O. Velázquez Vega**.* [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

On 28/09/2017 9:10 AM, Evan Cooch wrote: > Thanks for both the mapply and array approaches! However, although > intended to generate the same result, they don't: > > # mapply approach > > n = 3 > sa <- rnorm(n,0.8,0.1) > so <- rnorm(n,0.5,0.1) > m <- rnorm(n,1.2,0.1) > mats = mapply(function(sa1, so1, m1) > matrix(c(0,sa1*m1,so1,sa1),2,2,byrow=T),

Thanks, that sounds like it would work. Was this based on what any other target did? Or do any other targets take this approach? I just want to make sure that we don't already have a hook suitable for this. Overriding runOnFunction to run what could be described as just a "late SelectionDAG pass" sounds pretty intrusive. Do you remember other approaches that didn't work? --

Hi everyone, I believe the ABI for exception unwinding on a stack tagged with MTE needs to be clarified -- hopefully we can start the discussion here? (Please feel free to add people to the thread that you think would be interested). I'll outline some possible approaches that I think seem good below, I know Evgenii and Peter have done a lot of investigation in this area for HWASAN, so

Sure -- thanks -- only took me 3-4 attempts to get aperm to work (as opposed to really thinking hard about how it works ;-) On 9/28/2017 11:55 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 28/09/2017 9:10 AM, Evan Cooch wrote: >> Thanks for both the mapply and array approaches! However, although >> intended to generate the same result, they don't: >> >> # mapply approach

Hallo, I have a question that is more statistic related than about nlme and R functioning. I want to fit a complicated nonlinear model with nlme with several different measures of transpiration taken on each of the 220 trees grouped in 8 families. The unknown parameters of the model are three + their variances (and covariances). I want to estimate the variances among families of the

All, We are researching approaches to parallel R with the end goal of running R in a distributed manner on a Linux cluster. We expect of course to do some work decomposing our problems to be task-parallel or data-parallel, but wouldn't mind getting an initial boost working with "embarrassingly parallel" code sections and one of the approaches below. Incidentally our environment

Hi folks, I am wondering about the relationship clang, opt and llc. I understand that this has been asked, e.g., http://stackoverflow.com/questions/40350990/relationship-between-clang-opt-llc-and-llvm-linker. Sorry for posting a similar question again, but I still have something that hasn't been resolved yet. More specifically I am wondering about the following two approaches compiling

Hello. I am Liu Chi(??) from Peking University, China. I am planning to join GSoC. I am interested in Xapian and looking forward to find something interesting in GSoC 2014 Project Ideas List. The topic of "Clustering of Search Results" looks interesting and I think it suits me. I have been involved in a project that aims to clustering tweets based on the text similarity and user

> You can solve andersens and steengaards and everything else using > standard dataflow solvers, and that's an implementation strategy, but > it will be really slow. > > Part of the tradeoff is how fast something runs, and approaches that > are orders of magnitude faster often change the calculus of what > people do. For example, before hardekopf's work, andersens

On Apr 26, 2006, at 3:23 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Vikram Adve wrote: >>> On some platforms we generate explicit checks for null pointer >>> dereferences and for division by zero (division is a bit >>> different in >>> that we also have to handle java's special rule for dividing -1 >>> by the >>> minimum

I''m curious to see how others are dealing with the construction of multi-page forms. I can see a couple of ways to do this, each with their own advantages/disadvantates. Approach 1: * define one table with columns for each form entry. * define a method/view for each page, which only displays a subset of the fields. * submitting a page saves the data and moves on to the next page.

I''m just getting back to looking at backgroundrb after a long hiatus since June. I''m looking at creating some workers but I''m a bit stuck as to how I should write tests for them. What''s the recommended approach for unit testing of workers? The project will ultimately be used by a Rails app but I''m comfortable developing the worker code as a

Hello, My challenge is to run Linux on a computer where I don't dare to touch the Microsoft Windows harddisk. Fifthteen years ago would be trick to attach a second harddisk to the computer and boot from floppy disk. In 2011 is the idea to attach a second disk and netboot it. One approach is to TFTP the kernel and append 'root=/dev/sdb1' This E-mail is however to seek advice for

Thanks David for the comments. Sorry for the late reply. On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:52 PM, David A. Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > Che-Liang Chiou <clchiou at gmail.com> writes: > >> Hi there, >> >> Thank Nick for kindly reviewing the patch.  Here is the link to the >> source code of the PTX backend; it would help Nick review the patch.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote: > I created a new block and inserted it into the present basic block list > , but I get this error: > > opt: BasicBlock.cpp:83: virtual llvm::BasicBlock::~BasicBlock(): Assertion `getParent() == 0 && "BasicBlock still linked into the program!"' failed. > > The program completes its task and i get this in the end. I am