Displaying 20 results from an estimated 16200 matches for "complexness".
Did you mean:
completness
2018 Dec 10
1
[PATCH net 4/4] vhost: log dirty page correctly
Hi Jason,
I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on net/master]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Jason-Wang/Fix-various-issue-of-vhost/20181210-223236
config: i386-randconfig-x072-201849 (attached as .config)
compiler: gcc-7 (Debian 7.3.0-1) 7.3.0
reproduce:
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
make ARCH=i386
All
2010 Mar 31
2
Should as.complex(NaN) -> NA?
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,
2019 Jul 01
14
RFC: Complex in LLVM
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
2005 Sep 10
1
FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT and R-2.2.0 alpha
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
2019 Oct 22
4
Complex proposal v3 + roundtable agenda
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
2012 Aug 16
8
How to extract from a column in a table?
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
2013 Mar 11
5
samba4 provision password complexity error
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 (not
2020 Nov 12
0
Complex proposal v3 + roundtable agenda
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
2023 Nov 09
1
c(NA, 0+1i) not the same as c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i)?
>>>>> 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
2023 Nov 08
1
c(NA, 0+1i) not the same as c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i)?
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
2023 Apr 14
1
Possible inconsistency between `as.complex(NA_real_)` and the docs
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
2019 Aug 29
2
Complex proposal v2
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
2019 Jul 02
3
RFC: Complex in LLVM
"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
2020 Nov 12
5
Complex proposal v3 + roundtable agenda
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
2023 Nov 06
1
c(NA, 0+1i) not the same as c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i)?
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
2023 Nov 05
2
c(NA, 0+1i) not the same as c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i)?
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
2019 Jul 02
2
RFC: Complex in LLVM
> Why? I'd prefer we avoid introducing even more special cases. Is there
> any reason why we should not define "complex <scalar type>", or to be
> more restrictive, "complex <floating-point type>"? I really don't like
> the idea of excluding 128-bit complex types, and I think that we can
> have a generic facility.
Hal, we had 128-bit
2023 Nov 06
1
c(NA, 0+1i) not the same as c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i)?
>>>>> Michael Chirico
>>>>> on Sun, 5 Nov 2023 09:41:42 -0800 writes:
> 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
2023 Nov 07
1
c(NA, 0+1i) not the same as c(as.complex(NA), 0+1i)?
Thanks Martin. My hang-up was not on what the outcome of as.complex(NA)
should be, but rather, how I should read code like c(x, y) generally. Till
now, I have thought of it like 'c(x, y)' is c(as(x, typeof(y)), y)` when
"type(y) > type(x)". Basically in my mind, "coercion" in R <->
as.<newtype>(.) (or coerceVector() in C).
So I tracked down the source
2018 Jul 10
1
problem with display of complex number
Hi,
> 1e10+5i
[1] 1e+10+0e+00i
> Im(1e10+5i)
[1] 5
maybe little better...
--- R-3.5.1.orig/src/main/complex.c 2018-03-26 07:02:25.000000000 +0900
+++ R-3.5.1/src/main/complex.c 2018-07-10 12:50:42.523874767 +0900
@@ -381,6 +381,7 @@
r->i = fround(pow10 * x->i, digits)/pow10;
} else {
digits = (double)(dig);
+ if(digits < 1) digits=1; /* a little better */