search for: contort

Hello, I need to take a dot product of each row of a dataframe and a vector. The number of columns will be dynamic. The way I've been doing it so far is contorted. Is there a better way? dotproduct <- function(dataf, v2) { apply(t(t(as.matrix(a)) * v2),1,sum) #contorted! } df = data.frame(a=c(1,2,3),b=c(4,5,6)) vec = c(4,5) dotproduct(df, vec) thanks, allie

At 19:49 07/09/00 -0700, A.J. Rossini wrote: > >I've had some "interesting" emails with Frank a while back (years?) >over this. He's got some valid points, and some amusing points... > >He's also recently realized the extent and importance that licenses >have in the real world. > >However, the port is fairly major (I know a few people who will

Hi there I would like to setup my puppetmasterd behind my ADSL modem and manage the nodes on the hosting sites. I can imagine opening ports to the puppetmasterd server will work. Am I right? On the other hand an ideal configuration for me would be a Reverse Proxy setup, so I don''t have to touch the ADSL router. Has anyone setup a puppetmasterd behind a reverse proxy? Any pointers,

...he variable is instantiated. However, abstract data types are not necessarily invalid for codegen; it depends on how the types are used. More on this below... > Still, there are a large number of potential foibles here. For > instance, passing an argument can require platform-specific > contortions to conform to the platform ABI... Are those contortions done by the native code generator back-end, or are they done when the C compiler generates llvm IR? I'm assuming it's done by the back-end, because it would be bad if the C compiler had to generate different IR for every platform...

...k like in a normal 32-bit i386 world, and not in xenified world. Am I doing something stupid, or is there some technicality of memory subsystem that I don''t get. Ofcourse, if I just use pci_alloc_consistent (for a small buffer), everything works fine, since there is no bootmem related contortion involved. I will highly appreciate any input on this. --Himanshu ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Himanshu Raj PhD Student, GaTech (www.cc.gatech.edu/~rhim) I prefer to receive attachments in an open, non-proprietary format. ----------------------------...

...uys are really overthinking this: volatile should be volatile should be volatile. It makes the behavior of volatile easy to understand, it makes it easy to use, it allows LLVM to support the rules for the volatile keyword in C (AFAIK), and it doesn't require you to guess all the different, contorted ways in which volatile could be used. -- John T. > Ciao, > > Duncan. > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

...hey have full shell access), then they can use rssh_chroot_helper to chroot to arbitrary locations in the file system, and thereby gain root access. Workaround ---------- By careful configuration of file system mounts, it is possible to avoid this problem; but doing so requires a fair amount of contortion which will be difficult to re-engineer after an existing installation has already been configured. The exploit requires the user to be able to write executables in the directory they are chrooting to, and create hard links to SUID binaries within that directory structure, so by preventing eithe...

Hi Torok, >>> Well...strictly as LLVM IR I find externally visible incorrect >>> behavior unlikely, it's just a "different definition". For C and >>> C++, I'd be looking at more complicated variations of >>> >>> int main() >>> { >>> volatile int i = 1; >>> return 0; >>> } >>>

On 2009-02-18, at 14:53, DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > On 2009-02-18, at 08:06, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> Still, there are a large number of potential foibles here. For >> instance, passing an argument can require platform-specific >> contortions to conform to the platform ABI... > > Are those contortions done by the native code generator back-end, or > are they done when the C compiler generates llvm IR? I'm assuming > it's done by the back-end, because it would be bad if the C compiler > had to generate d...

Hi, I'm in the position that a network console would occasionally be very useful for me to control pxelinux. Has the possibility of adding it (next to VGA and serial) been ever discussed? I understand that it may sound somewhat contorted, but it could also serve instead of a TFTP PUT for extracting hardware info, for example... How hard would it be to add (considering gPXE as well)? -- Cheers, Feri.

...4 by extension). Anyway, the problem is that for some reason /dev/console is not getting created. We get completely through the installation, in what looks like a successful manner, but when we reboot at the point init would come up with see nothing at all, and there it sits. I went through many contortions including including using bash as init and then starting init manually with strace turned on. This all lead to the conclusion that for some reason init was not getting a console. I happened to look in the dev directory between a normal minimal install of CentOS 4 and our "minimal install...

...ng system, so it would seem odd to have to temporarily install >> llvm-gcc to build llvm, but then install llvm-gcc in a separate package. >> > > That issue goes away with llvm-gcc4. You would simply build llvm and > then build llvm-gcc4. With llvm-gcc3, its a little more contorted: > > 1. build llvm tools only (don't build the runtime) > 2. build llvm-gcc3 > 3. build the llvm runtime library > Hi Reid, I got llvm all up and running, thanks. I'm now trying to set up llvm-gcc4. Does llvm-gcc4 require the llvm object files, or can I install llvm,...

...; problem isn't basic_ostream _per_se_. There are two issues we're > worried about: The problem is basic_ostream and the design of the whole iostreams library. Use of virtual base classes makes every virtual method particularly expensive, for example. > 1. The static constructor contortions in place to handle the extremely > unlikely case of a static object constructor writing to one of the > standard streams. I also dislike this strongly, but it isn't really related. > 2. Slowness of std::cout and friends due to their reliance on FILE * > buffering and r...

I have a Gentoo linux (OpenRC) desktop connected to a UPS, the brand is Vultech, but lsusb gives me this: Bus 003 Device 006: ID 0925:1234 Lakeview Research and I found an article about this hardware here, someone had it working with the richcomm_usb driver: http://verahill.blogspot.it/2012/12/kstar-australia-1500-va-ups-on-debian.html So, I installed nut and configured my UPS to work with the

...ng FILE*'s > directly. Ah. Basically operator<< for FILE*. I don't see a lot of benefit to redefining operator<< for every type just to avoid ostreams. The problem isn't basic_ostream _per_se_. There are two issues we're worried about: 1. The static constructor contortions in place to handle the extremely unlikely case of a static object constructor writing to one of the standard streams. 2. Slowness of std::cout and friends due to their reliance on FILE * buffering and resulting excessive virtual function calls. I just implemented "standard&qu...

I found that predict.gnls failed with a wierd error message about a non-numeric argument to a binary vector in one of three nearly identical uses. Error in Inh/Ki : non-numeric argument to binary operator (Inh and Ki are arguments to the function used in the formula for the object whose predictions were requested). It turns out that the problem is in getCovariateFormula(). The final line in

...is a source-based > packaging system, so it would seem odd to have to temporarily install > llvm-gcc to build llvm, but then install llvm-gcc in a separate package. That issue goes away with llvm-gcc4. You would simply build llvm and then build llvm-gcc4. With llvm-gcc3, its a little more contorted: 1. build llvm tools only (don't build the runtime) 2. build llvm-gcc3 3. build the llvm runtime library > > Thanks for all your help! You're welcome. Reid. > > -e > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.u...

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, David Greene wrote: >> Posix is pretty available, what system doesn't have them? > > Windows, for one. If POSIX is ok, it's better in my mind to just directly Windows has POSIX calls. > use open, write and friends, which is what I do now. Going the cstdio > route should only be done for portability reasons to support non-POSIX > systems. I

Rails has many built in validation methods to ensure that an ActiveRecord instance cannot be created or updated under certain situations (typically caused by invalid data). However, I can find no methods to govern whether an ActiveRecord instance can be destroyed. Essentially, I wish an error to be raised when a user tries to delete an ActiveRecord without first adhering to a certain set of

...d > particularly expensive, for example. I don't know about "particularly." The performance loss of virtual functions is mostly due to lack of inlining. Once that's gone, a pointer adjustment here or these isn't going to matter much. > > 1. The static constructor contortions in place to handle the extremely > > unlikely case of a static object constructor writing to one of the > > standard streams. > > I also dislike this strongly, but it isn't really related. Isn't this the motivation behind "#include <iostreams> is hereby...