search for: combining

Dear R-users, I've written a script that produces a frequency table for a group of texts. The table has a total frequency for each word type and individual frequency counts for each of the files. (I have not included the code for creating the column headers.) Below is a sample: Word Total 01.txt 02.txt 03.txt 04.txt 05.txt the 22442 2667 3651 1579 2132 3097 I 18377 3407 454 824 449

Hi llvm-dev, I just tried to implement a target-specific dag combine to preempt a generic dag combine, and I was surprised to see that it didn't work because the generic dag combines are run first. Does anyone know the rationale for running the generic dag combines first? I would have expected the target dag combines to run first because they have more specific information about what combines

Hi again, I am exploring if R can help me to get all possible combinations of members in a group. Let say I have a group with 5 members : A, B, C, D, E Now I want to generate all possible unique combinations with all possible lengths from that group e.g. 1st combination : A 2nd combination : B ..... 5th combination : E 6th combination : A, B 7th combination : B, C .... last combination: A, B,

I'm running an ANOVA on some data for respiration in a forest. I am having a problem with my degrees of freedom. For one of my variables I get one fewer degrees of freedom than I should. I have 12 plots and I therefore expected 11 degrees of freedom, but instead I got 10. Any ideas? I have some code and output below: > class(Combined.Plot) [1] "character" >

...00-0x8ad6c000 write-back @ 0x8ad6b000-0x8ad6e000 write-back @ 0x8ad9c000-0x8ad9d000 write-back @ 0x8adce000-0x8adcf000 write-back @ 0x8adcf000-0x8add0000 write-back @ 0x8adcf000-0x8add2000 write-back @ 0x8add3000-0x8add4000 write-back @ 0x8ae04000-0x8ae05000 write-back @ 0x8b208000-0x8b209000 write-combining @ 0xc0000000-0xd0000000 write-combining @ 0xd0000000-0xe0000000 write-combining @ 0xe0000000-0xe0040000 write-combining @ 0xe0040000-0xe0050000 write-combining @ 0xe0050000-0xe0051000 write-combining @ 0xe0051000-0xe0151000 write-combining @ 0xe0151000-0xe0191000 write-combining @ 0xe0191000-0xe01a...

I am working with the combinations function (available in the gtools package).  However, rather than store all of the possible combinations I would like to check each combination to see if it meets a certain criteria.  If it does, I will then store it. I have looked at the combinations code but am unsure where in the algorithm I would be able to operate on each combination. Thanks!

Hi , I need some clarification for below error msg in the glustershd.log file. What is this msg? Why is this showing up?. currently using glusterfs 3.10.1 when ever I start write process to volume (volume mounted thru fuse) I am seeing this kind of error and glustershd process consumes some percentage of cpu until write process completes. [2017-08-28 10:01:13.030710] W [MSGID: 122006]

ummm, Ista, it's 2^n. Cheers, Bert Bert Gunter "The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep coming along and sticking things into it." -- Opus (aka Berkeley Breathed in his "Bloom County" comic strip ) On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Ista Zahn <istazahn at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Christofer Bogaso >

Hello, I'm trying to do the following and encountering problems with the generated arm assembly code: I've got an application in two parts that i've compiled into llvm bitcode using: llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -c part1.c -o part1.bc llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -c part2.c -o part2.bc Then I link them together: llvm-ld part1.bc part2.bc -o combined.bc Now I use the ARM backend via llc to

Dear R-users, I have some questions about the scope of functions, which I would like to illustrate with the following example: ### First example require(Hmisc) combine.levels <- function(x,y) browser() whatever <- function(x,y) combine.levels(x,y) x <- 1:5 names(x) <- LETTERS[x] y <- 6: 10 names(y) <- LETTERS[y-2] combine(x,y) # no debugging break whatever(x,y) # debugging

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Christofer Bogaso <bogaso.christofer at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi again, > > I am exploring if R can help me to get all possible combinations of > members in a group. > > Let say I have a group with 5 members : A, B, C, D, E > > Now I want to generate all possible unique combinations with all > possible lengths from that group e.g.

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Dec 17, 2016, at 1:35 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> First of all, sorry for the long mail. >> Inspired by the excellent analysis Rui did for lld, I decided to do >> the same for llvm. >> I'm personally very

I am using 3.10.1 from which version this update is available. On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Ashish Pandey <aspandey at redhat.com> wrote: > > Whenever we do some fop on EC volume on a file, we check the xattr also to > see if the file is healthy or not. If not, we trigger heal. > lookup is the fop for which we don't take inodelk lock so it is possible > that the

Hi! I want to use one method "combinations" from "gtools" package but in my code I must use also "dprep" method where is method "combinations" too. Mayby I show you result my help function: Help on topic 'combinations' was found in the following packages: Package Library dprep /usr/lib64/R/library gtools

Hi, I am trying to use a vector of indices to select some rows from a matrix. But before I can do that I somehow need to convert 'combinations' into a list, since 'mode(combinations)' says it's 'numerical'. Any idea how I can do that? library("combinat") combinations <- t(combn(8,2)) indices <- c(sample(1:length(combinations),10)) # convert ???

First of all, sorry for the long mail. Inspired by the excellent analysis Rui did for lld, I decided to do the same for llvm. I'm personally very interested in build-time for LTO configuration, with particular attention to the time spent in the optimizer. Rafael did something similar back in March, so this can be considered as an update. This tries to include a more accurate high-level

...8ad6e000 > write-back @ 0x8ad9c000-0x8ad9d000 > write-back @ 0x8adce000-0x8adcf000 > write-back @ 0x8adcf000-0x8add0000 > write-back @ 0x8adcf000-0x8add2000 > write-back @ 0x8add3000-0x8add4000 > write-back @ 0x8ae04000-0x8ae05000 > write-back @ 0x8b208000-0x8b209000 > write-combining @ 0xc0000000-0xd0000000 > write-combining @ 0xd0000000-0xe0000000 > write-combining @ 0xe0000000-0xe0040000 > write-combining @ 0xe0040000-0xe0050000 > write-combining @ 0xe0050000-0xe0051000 > write-combining @ 0xe0051000-0xe0151000 > write-combining @ 0xe0151000-0xe0191000 >...

> On Dec 17, 2016, at 1:35 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > First of all, sorry for the long mail. > Inspired by the excellent analysis Rui did for lld, I decided to do > the same for llvm. > I'm personally very interested in build-time for LTO configuration, > with particular attention to the time spent in the optimizer. >

Whenever we do some fop on EC volume on a file, we check the xattr also to see if the file is healthy or not. If not, we trigger heal. lookup is the fop for which we don't take inodelk lock so it is possible that the xattr which we get for lookup fop are different for some bricks. This difference is not reliable but still we are triggering heal and that is why you are seeing these messages.

...egister:i64 %vreg1 t6: i64 = sub t4, Constant:i64<1> t7: i64 = shl Constant:i64<1>, t6 t9: i64 = xor t7, Constant:i64<-1> t10: i64 = and t2, t9 t12: ch,glue = CopyToReg t0, Register:i64 %R1, t10 t13: ch = XSTGISD::Ret t12, Register:i64 %R1, t12:1 Combining: t13: ch = XSTGISD::Ret t12, Register:i64 %R1, t12:1 Combining: t12: ch,glue = CopyToReg t0, Register:i64 %R1, t10 Combining: t11: i64 = Register %R1 Combining: t10: i64 = and t2, t9 Combining: t9: i64 = xor t7, Constant:i64<-1> ... into: t15: i64 = rotl Constant:i64<-2>, t6 Combi...