search for: displacing

Hi! I'm running an anova on a lm and I get the message Error: invalid dimnames given for data frame Any idea where it comes from? Many thanks. Here is the fit and the attempted anova: > fit Call: lm(formula = as.formula(paste(chemical, "a~", cmd, sep = "")), singular.ok = TRUE) Coefficients: (Intercept) Odom Displace Weight

Hi, I'm working on a project that use llvm openrisc beckend (currently not part of the upstream). Right now I'm looking at a bug where llc generates memory instructions that has out-of-range displacement, for example l.sb 37668(r1), r2 in which 37668 is a 17 bit signed integer, but the instruction only allows 16 bit signed displacement. As a result, after running through the

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 03:12:45PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > On 02/13/2017 02:42 PM, Waiman Long wrote: > > On 02/13/2017 05:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>> That way we'd end up with something like: > >>> > >>> asm(" > >>> push %rdi; > >>>

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 03:12:45PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > On 02/13/2017 02:42 PM, Waiman Long wrote: > > On 02/13/2017 05:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>> That way we'd end up with something like: > >>> > >>> asm(" > >>> push %rdi; > >>>

On 10/12/2017 03:53 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 10/12/2017 03:27 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 12/10/17 20:11, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>> There is also another problem: >>> >>> [ 1.312425] general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP >>> [ 1.312901] Modules linked in: >>> [ 1.313389] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: init Not tainted 4.14.0-rc4+ #6

On 10/12/2017 03:53 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 10/12/2017 03:27 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 12/10/17 20:11, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>> There is also another problem: >>> >>> [ 1.312425] general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP >>> [ 1.312901] Modules linked in: >>> [ 1.313389] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: init Not tainted 4.14.0-rc4+ #6

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1337 Bug ID: 1337 Summary: NETMAP feature, using a displaced mask fail. Product: iptables Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: iptables Assignee: netfilter-buglog at

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1339 Bug ID: 1339 Summary: NETMAP feature, using a displaced mask fail. Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: unknown Assignee:

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 02:18:48PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 10/12/2017 03:53 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > > On 10/12/2017 03:27 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >> On 12/10/17 20:11, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > >>> There is also another problem: > >>> > >>> [ 1.312425] general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP > >>> [ 1.312901]

Hey guys, I'm working on a bug for x86-64 in LLVM 2.9. Well, it's actually two issues. The assembly generated for large stack offsets has an overflow; And, once the overflow is fixed, the displacement is too large for GNU ld to handle it. void fool( int long n ) { double w[268435600]; double z[268435600]; unsigned long i; for ( i = 0; i < n; i++ ) { w[i] = 1.0; z[i] =

After looking at this for a while, I do not think that this problem is NP-hard. With a finite "short branch" displacement k, I was not able to come up with a gadget that could create global constraints as would be needed to e.g. model an instance of 3SAT or vertex cover in terms of this problem. The problem is hard though. I believe that it is likely to be exponential in the "short

In order to implement a subtle memory access optimisation during post-RA scheduling, I want to be able to determine some properties about the memory access. If I have two registers referring to memory, how can I determine if they are derived from the same base-pointer? Often LLVM will optimise to use intermediate registers holding partial displacements, for example, when a 'struct'

Hi- I'm wrestling with some of my data apparently not being called into a GLM or an LM. I'm looking at factors affecting fish annual catch rates (ie. CPUE) over 30 years. Two of the factors I'm using are sea surface temperature and sea surface temperature anomaly. A small sample of my data is below: CPUE Year Vessel_ID Base_Port Boat_Lgth Planing SST Anomaly 0.127

Dear useRs, I am fitting a mixed model using the function lmer from the package lme4, but I have some problems when I try to test the effect of my factors of interest. First let me explain the structure of the model: I'm measuring animal movements. Explicitly, I am interested in displacement (straight-line distance from an initial point). Displacements are measured longitudinally, with one

Does anybody experienced that after exiting a program and when the screen resolution is back to normal, all windows are moved to first workspace?

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65310 Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|dri-devel at lists.freedesktop |nouveau at lists.freedesktop.o |.org |rg

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65310 --- Comment #4 from Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> --- Cannot seem to reproduce $ export CFLAGS="-march=native -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -floop-interchange -floop-strip-mine -floop-block" export CXXFLAGS="$CFLAGS" # Build mesa with Gallium3D hardware drivers $

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65310 Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO --- Comment #5 from Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> --- Using gcc 4.8.1 $ gcc -v

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65310 --- Comment #6 from Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> --- Please provide repro steps. I'm inclined to believe this is a problem in the environment, and not a core gcc bug. But those are some trippy optimization flags, so who knows. Be sure to specify the platform you're building for (given the sse2 flag, x86 or x86_64... but

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65310 Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #7 from Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at