search for: complexity

...^ drivers//vhost/vhost.c: In function 'vhost_log_write': drivers//vhost/vhost.c:1788:26: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] r = log_write_hva(vq, (u64)iov[i].iov_base, ^ Cyclomatic Complexity 5 include/linux/compiler.h:__read_once_size Cyclomatic Complexity 5 include/linux/compiler.h:__write_once_size Cyclomatic Complexity 1 arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h:array_index_mask_nospec Cyclomatic Complexity 1 include/linux/kasan-checks.h:kasan_check_read Cyclomatic Complexity 1 inc...

I'm having trouble grokking complex NaN's. This first set examples using complex(re=NaN,im=NaN) give what I expect > Re(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN > Im(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN > Arg(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN > Mod(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN > abs(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN and so do the following > Re(complex(re=1,

Hey all, I volunteered to put together a proposal regard complex in LLVM. Consider the following to be a strawman meant to spark discussion. It's based on real-world experience with complex but is not expected to cover all use-cases. Proposal to Support Complex Operations in LLVM ---------------------------------------------- Abstract Several vendors and individuals have proposed

The configure script runs fine, but when I compile todays alpha version of R-2.2.0 (R-alpha_2005-09-10_r35546.tar.gz) under FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT from Sept. 4th I get the following output: ======================================================== [...] gcc -I../../src/extra/zlib -I../../src/extra/bzip2 -I../../src/extra/pcre -I. -I../../src/include -I../../src/include -I/usr/local/include

The thing is that real*complex, complex*real, and complex/real are not "complex arithmetic" in the requisite sense. The complex numbers are a vector space over the reals, and complex*real and real*complex are vector*scalar and scalar*vector. For example, in the Ada programming language, we have function "*" (Left, Right : Complex) return Complex; function "*" (Left :

>>>>> Richard O'Keefe >>>>> on Fri, 6 Sep 2024 17:24:07 +1200 writes: > The thing is that real*complex, complex*real, and complex/real are not > "complex arithmetic" in the requisite sense. > The complex numbers are a vector space over the reals, Yes, but they _also_ are field (and as others have argued mathematically only

G.5.1 para 2 can be found in the C17 standard -- I actually have the final draft not the published standard. It's in earlier standards, I just didn't check earlier standards. Complex arithmetic was not in the first C standard (C89) but was in C99. The complex numbers do indeed form a field, and Z*W invokes an operation in that field when Z and W are both complex numbers. Z*R and R*Z,

Ahead of the Wednesday’s roundtable at the developers’ conference, here is version three of the proposal for first-class complex types in LLVM. I was not able to add Krzysztof Parzyszek’s suggestion of a “cunzip” intrinsic returning two vectors as I could not find examples of intrinsics that return two values at the IR level. The Hexagon intrinsics declared to return two values do not actually

Hi, I have a table in which one column has the name of the objects as shown below. Name Budlamp-Woodcutter Complex - 15 to 60% slope (60/25/15) Budlamp-Woodcutter Complex - 15 to 60% slope (60/25/15) Terrarossa-Blacktail-Pyeatt Complex - 1 to 40% slope (40/35/15/10) Terrarossa-Blacktail-Pyeatt Complex - 1 to 40% slope (40/35/15/10) How can I split the single column into three columns

I am trying to provision my samba 4 domain and even though I have deactivated password complexity using the samba-tool I still receive this error during the provision: ERROR(ldb): uncaught exception - 0000052D: Constraint violation - check_password_restrictions: the password does not meet the complexity criteria! Is this a known issue or do I need to do something else to get this working (no...

Hi, There’s growing interest among our users to make better use of dedicated hardware instructions for complex math and I would like to re-start the discussion on the topic. Given that this original thread was started a while ago apologies if I missed anything already discussed earlier on the list or the round-table. The original mail is quoted below. In particular, I’m interested in the AArch64

>>>>> Mikael Jagan >>>>> on Wed, 8 Nov 2023 11:13:18 -0500 writes: > So, to summarize, the open questions are: > (1) Should as.complex(NA_character_) give complex(r=NA_real_, i=0) > instead of NA_complex_? > (2) Should the first argument in c(NA, x) and c(NA_integer_, x), > where typeof(x) == "complex", be promoted

So, to summarize, the open questions are: (1) Should as.complex(NA_character_) give complex(r=NA_real_, i=0) instead of NA_complex_? (2) Should the first argument in c(NA, x) and c(NA_integer_, x), where typeof(x) == "complex", be promoted to complex(r=NA_real_, i=0) instead of NA_complex_? My opinions: (1) No. The imaginary part of the

Hi all, Surprisingly (at least to me), `as.complex(NA_real_)` results in `complex(real = NA_real_, imaginary = 0)` rather than `NA_complex_`. It seems to me that this goes against the docs of `as.complex()`, which say this in the Details section: "Up to R versions 3.2.x, all forms of NA and NaN were coerced to a complex NA, i.e., the NA_complex_ constant, for which both the real and

All, Here is the second revision of the proposal for a complex type in LLVM. It clarifies a few things that came up during discussion and adds additional operations for complex types. -David Proposal to Support Complex Operations in LLVM ---------------------------------------------- Revision History v1 - Initial proposal [1] v2 - This proposal - Added complex of

"Finkel, Hal J." <hfinkel at anl.gov> writes: > I think that it's really important that we're specific about the goals > here. Exactly what kinds of optimizations are we aiming to (more-easily) > enable? There certainly exists hardware with instructions that help > vectorize complex multiplication, for example, and having a builtin > complex type would

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:03 PM Florian Hahn via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > There’s growing interest among our users to make better use of dedicated hardware instructions for complex math and I would like to re-start the discussion on the topic. Given that this original thread was started a while ago apologies if I missed anything already discussed

atan(1i) -> 0 + Inf i complex(1/5) -> 0.2 + 0i atan(1i) -> (0 + Inf i) * (0.2 + 0i) -> 0*0.2 + 0*0i + Inf i * 0.2 + Inf i * 0i infinity times zero is undefined -> 0 + 0i + Inf i + NaN * i^2 -> 0 + 0i + Inf i - NaN -> NaN + Inf i I am not sure how complex arithmetic could arrive at another answer. I advise against messing with infinities... use atan2() if you don't

Hmm, it is not actually at odds with help(c), it is just that the autocoercion works different that it used to, so that as.complex(NA) == as.complex(NA_real) == NA_real_+0i) which now differs from NA_complex although both print as NA. I haven't been quite alert when this change was discussed, but it does look a bit unfortunate that usage patterns like c(NA, 0+1i) does not give complex NA

This is another follow-up to the thread from September "Recent changes to as.complex(NA_real_)". A test in data.table was broken by the changes for NA coercion to complex; the breakage essentially comes from c(NA, 0+1i) # vs c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i) The former is the output we tested against; the latter is essentially (via coerceVector() in C) what's generated by our