search for: defintitely

...cts 9 and 10 When I look at values 8 and 9 of x.dist, I see that they have the same values (I'm not wrong, it's values of 8 and 9 and not 9 and 10): x.dist[8:9] [1] 39.8214 39.8214 So, just to give'm a try, I changed the value of x.dist[8]: x.dist[8] <- c(39.7) Now, there are defintitely different values in this part of x.dist: x.dist[7:10] [1] 39.69898 39.70000 39.82140 39.98892 But when I start isoMDS again, I got again the error: x.mds <- isoMDS(x.dist) Fehler in isoMDS(x.dist) : zero or negative distance between objects 9 and 10 So, where's my error?...

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Ivan A. Kosarev via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello Daniel, > > > The problem with the way you are trying to show this is that > > there are many ways to prove no-alias, and TBAA is one of them. > > The reason i stare at dump files and debug info is precisely to > > separate the TBAA portion from the rest.

Synopsis: I am trying to build and install a package in R, but I have run into a problem where the file names determine success or failure of the package installation. I started with a single file containing two class definitions. This package installs properly. If I split the classes into two files, the build fails. If I simply change the file name of one file with no other changes, the

...> > > You definitely may be able to come up with examples where only tbaa > *should* be active, but i don't think it's really a safe way to go > about testing assumptions about TBAA. > For example, it also assumes no bugs in the other methods of analysis, > which is defintitely not a safe assumption :) > > If you only care about the *end result* (IE whether it's allow to say > the accesses overlap) it is generally going to be okay, but again, > this assumes no bug in any implementation > > If you want to test tbaa specific things for real, you'...