search for: chelleng

Hi everyone, want to use R in our company but have to complete an intern questionnaire first. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance! Here the questions I’m not sure about: 1. Is R a Clientsoftware / Serversoftware / Systemsoftware? 2. Does R need a “chellenge-response” treatment for activation? 3. Is R proxy-able? 4. Is the personalised WINDOWS-NTLM-authorization at ISA-proxy possible? 5. Are any exceptions for virus scanner needed? If yes, which ones? 6. Does R changes system files or folders? (e.g. system32, registry). If yes, whi...

On Dec 20, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Roman Levenstein wrote: >> >> This will probably require a slightly more extensive patch to >> legalizer. The current mechanism assumes either 1->1 or 1->2 >> expansion. > > Exactly. This is what I meant with "more chellenging";) It is assumed > at several places that 1->1 or 2->2 expanstions are taking place. A > generic case is not handled yet. > >> It also assumes the result of expansion are of legal >> types. > > Yes. And this is also a reason why it is not too obvious how to...

...> > one for i16, legalize will already 'expand' them for you. > > > > This will probably require a slightly more extensive patch to > legalizer. The current mechanism assumes either 1->1 or 1->2 > expansion. Exactly. This is what I meant with "more chellenging";) It is assumed at several places that 1->1 or 2->2 expanstions are taking place. A generic case is not handled yet. > It also assumes the result of expansion are of legal > types. Yes. And this is also a reason why it is not too obvious how to handle f32->f64 promotion...

> >> d) Would it be possible with current implementation of soft-float >> support to map f32/f64 to integer types smaller than i32, e.g. to >> i16? >> I have the impression that it is not necessarily the case, since it >> would require that f64 is split into 4 parts. > > Yes, this should be fine. > >> This question is more about a theoretical

...:06 PM, Roman Levenstein wrote: > > >> > >> This will probably require a slightly more extensive patch to > >> legalizer. The current mechanism assumes either 1->1 or 1->2 > >> expansion. > > > > Exactly. This is what I meant with "more chellenging";) It is > assumed > > at several places that 1->1 or 2->2 expanstions are taking place. A > > generic case is not handled yet. > > > >> It also assumes the result of expansion are of legal > >> types. > > > > Yes. And this is also a...

...ein wrote: >> >>>> >>>> This will probably require a slightly more extensive patch to >>>> legalizer. The current mechanism assumes either 1->1 or 1->2 >>>> expansion. >>> >>> Exactly. This is what I meant with "more chellenging";) It is >> assumed >>> at several places that 1->1 or 2->2 expanstions are taking place. A >>> generic case is not handled yet. >>> >>>> It also assumes the result of expansion are of legal >>>> types. >>> >>>...

With all the recent discussion of SSD''s that lack suitable power-failure cache protection, surely there''s an opportunity for a separate modular solution? I know there used to be (years and years ago) small internal UPS''s that fit in a few 5.25" drive bays. They were designed to power the motherboard and peripherals, with the advantage of simplicity and efficiency

.... But some embedded systems are still only 16bit, which means that they would need something like this. I'm wondering, how easy or difficult would it be to support such a mapping to any integer type? My impression is that (b) and (c) are very easy to implement, but (a) and (d) could be more chellenging. Evan, I guess you are the most qualified person to judge about this, since you implemented the new soft-float support. What do you think about these extension proposals? -Roman --- Roman Levenstein <romixlev at gmail.com> wrote: > > Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:13:08 +0100 >...