search for: c26

...x2)+1*sqrt(B21*(X11*x1+X21*x2)^2+C21)A22*(X12*x1+X22*x2)+1*sqrt(B22*(X12*x1+X22*x2)^2+C22)A23*(X13*x1+X23*x2)+-1*sqrt(B23*(X13*x1+X23*x2)^2+C23)A24*(X14*x1+X24*x2)+-1*sqrt(B24*(X14*x1+X24*x2)^2+C24)A25*(X15*x1+X25*x2)+1*sqrt(B25*(X15*x1+X25*x2)^2+C25)A26*(X16*x1+X26*x2)+1*sqrt(B26*(X16*x1+X26*x2)^2+C26)A27*(X17*x1+X27*x2)+1*sqrt(B27*(X17*x1+X27*x2)^2+C27)A28*(X18*x1+X28*x2)+1*sqrt(B28*(X18*x1+X28*x2)^2+C28)A29*(X19*x1+X29*x2)+-1*sqrt(B29*(X19*x1+X29*x2)^2+C29)A210*(X110*x1+X210*x2)+1*sqrt(B210*(X110*x1+X210*x2)^2+C210)" > fct = c(as.expression(cum1), as.expression(cum2)) > fct expres...

...like to ask, when the "vanished files" warning is a sign that something bad is happening somewhere. I know that the `rsync-no-vanished` script can silence the warning, but I am wondering whether this is a sane thing to do. My guess based on https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3653#c26 and https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10356 is that it's fine, but I'd like to verify :) In my case, I have a batch process that creates ~500 files, some take 30 min, some take 8h to be created. The files are created in a tmp dir and are moved to a final dir when they are finished...

...ot;,"G2-C11","G2-C12","G2-C13","G2-C14","G2-C15","G2-C16", "G3-C17","G3-C18","G3-C19","G3-C20","G3-C21","G3-C22","G3-C23", "G4-C24","G4-C25","G4-C26","G4-C27","G4-C28","G4-C29","G4-C30","G4-C31") write.csv(averagedResults, file = "Pr9549_averagedreplicates.csv", row.names = FALSE) #SCRIPT ENDS

...k, when the "vanished files" warning is a sign that something bad is happening somewhere. I know that the `rsync-no-vanished` script can silence the warning, but I am wondering whether this is a sane thing to do. > > My guess based on https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3653#c26 and https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10356 is that it's fine, but I'd like to verify :) > > In my case, I have a batch process that creates ~500 files, some take 30 min, some take 8h to be created. The files are created in a tmp dir and are moved to a final dir when they ar...

...0 +++ /etc/init.d/xendomains 2007-03-10 14:40:21.000000000 +0100 @@ -128,9 +128,9 @@ parseln() { - name=`echo "$1" | cut -c0-17` + name=`echo "$1" | cut -c0-25` name=${name%% *} - rest=`echo "$1" | cut -c18- ` + rest=`echo "$1" | cut -c26- ` read id mem cpu vcpu state tm < <(echo "$rest") } Perhaps it is better to use `echo "$1" | awk '{print $1}'` instead, to handle any width? -- System Information: Debian Release: 4.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architectu...

...Regards --------------------------------------------- yhhuang =BB=C6=D3=C2=BB=D4 Server Dept. TeleNav Shanghai Inc. Tel:(21)6337 2220 ext 8651 www.telenav.com -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Wayne Davison [mailto:wayned@samba.org]=20 =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2006=C4=EA3=D4=C26=C8=D5 23:46 =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Huang, YongHui =B3=AD=CB=CD: rsync@lists.samba.org =D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: how to distinguish local add and remote delete? On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 10:49:55AM +0800, Huang, YongHui wrote: > I have a question about how to distinguish local add and remote = delete? I jus...

...oration (c) Copyright 1987-97, MetaWare Incorporated w "flist.c",L509/C7(#257): '=' encountered where '==' may have been intended. w "flist.c",L711/C7(#257): '=' encountered where '==' may have been intended. w "flist.c",L945/C26(#257): '=' encountered where '==' may have been intended. w "flist.c",L952/C26(#257): '=' encountered where '==' may have been intended. No errors 4 warnings cc -I. -I. -g -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I./popt -c io.c -o io.o NCR High Performance C...

Am 10.10.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Tim Northover: > On 10 October 2015 at 04:16, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> is this the right place to discuss getting LLVM built using Eclipse, >> as described on http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html? > > It's probably as good as anywhere, Okay. > but I don't think

Hi Jack, On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > What are the acceptable performance regressions in the generated > code for a llvm release? We seem to be badly regressed in some > benchmarks (which I first noticed from the review of 3.6-rc1 at > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm-clang-3.5-3.6-rc1).

On 02/18/2015 03:01 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > So it seems that you're one of the very few people that doesn't use > ToT. Almost everyone else uses it and the progress of LLVM kind of > assume you do. My company also does not use ToT. Being able to associate a product with a well-known release is *very* important to us. It enables communication with our customers. It allows