search for: constant2

...al variable (e.g., a.ind.to.max"), and the value in the previous row on the same new variable # PLUS: - it has to be done by subgroup (variable "group") constant1<-c(1:3) # constant 1 used for transformation - has 3 levels; !!! in real life it will have up to 7 levels constant2<-seq(.15,.45,.15) # constant 2 used for transformation - has 3 levels; !!! in real life it will have up to 7 levels # CODE THAT IS TOO SLOW (it uses parameters specified in the previous code section): start1<-Sys.time() for(var in indexed.vars){ # looping through variables for(c1 in...

...quot;50"? Another way of stating my suggestion is that, if you agree that this is a correct lattice (different from Davide's proposal) and pretend the "spontaneous undef decay" problem does not exist, then: digraph G { Unknown -> Undef Undef -> Constant1 Undef -> Constant2 Undef -> Constant3 Constant1 -> Bottom Constant2 -> Bottom Constant3-> Bottom } then it should be legal / correct to first drop every lattice element from "Unknown" to "Undef" before running the algorithm. The only cases where this would give us a conservat...

...turn; + return markConstant(IV, &I, C); + } // Otherwise, one of our operands is overdefined. Try to produce something // better than overdefined with some tricks. Also, did you mean to make the lattice as: digraph G { Unknown -> Undef Undef -> Constant1 Undef -> Constant2 Undef -> Constant3 Constant1 -> Bottom Constant2 -> Bottom Constant3-> Bottom } ? In the lattice you've drawn, Constant MEET Undef will be Bottom, when it should ideally be Constant. Secondly, what's the purpose of splitting Unknown and Undef in the new scheme? Is th...

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers. > com> wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Is there a case in

...ting my suggestion is that, if you agree that this > is a correct lattice (different from Davide's proposal) and pretend > the "spontaneous undef decay" problem does not exist, then: > > digraph G { > Unknown -> Undef > Undef -> Constant1 > Undef -> Constant2 > Undef -> Constant3 > Constant1 -> Bottom > Constant2 -> Bottom > Constant3-> Bottom > } > > then it should be legal / correct to first drop every lattice element > from "Unknown" to "Undef" before running the algorithm. The only &gt...

...// Otherwise, one of our operands is overdefined. Try to produce > something > // better than overdefined with some tricks. > > > > > Also, did you mean to make the lattice as: > > digraph G { > Unknown -> Undef > Undef -> Constant1 > Undef -> Constant2 > Undef -> Constant3 > Constant1 -> Bottom > Constant2 -> Bottom > Constant3-> Bottom > } > > ? In the lattice you've drawn, Constant MEET Undef will be Bottom, > when it should ideally be Constant. > > Secondly, what's the purpose of split...

...d. Try to produce >> something >> // better than overdefined with some tricks. >> >> >> >> >> Also, did you mean to make the lattice as: >> >> digraph G { >> Unknown -> Undef >> Undef -> Constant1 >> Undef -> Constant2 >> Undef -> Constant3 >> Constant1 -> Bottom >> Constant2 -> Bottom >> Constant3-> Bottom >> } >> >> ? In the lattice you've drawn, Constant MEET Undef will be Bottom, >> when it should ideally be Constant. >> >> S...

...if you agree that this >> is a correct lattice (different from Davide's proposal) and pretend >> the "spontaneous undef decay" problem does not exist, then: >> >> digraph G { >> Unknown -> Undef >> Undef -> Constant1 >> Undef -> Constant2 >> Undef -> Constant3 >> Constant1 -> Bottom >> Constant2 -> Bottom >> Constant3-> Bottom >> } >> >> then it should be legal / correct to first drop every lattice element >> from "Unknown" to "Undef" before runn...

Hi. I'm sending this email to -dev as this may be of interest of many/people may have opinions/want to try the change before it goes in to report problems. I've been recently working on a patch to integrate `undef` in the SCCP solver, in the hope of fixing a tail of latent bugs in SCCP which remained uncovered for many years. I think this is a decent time to propose, so that it can