search for: duplicatable

Hi, It's my problem, supppose that we have a data.frame: t a b c 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 6 0 1 0 7 1 1 1 8 0 1 0 I need extract duplicat row i.e i nedd frame like this a b c 3 1 1 1 8 0 1 0 I try use subset(t, duplicated(t)) and t[duplicated(t), ] but this command return a b c 3 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 8 0 1 0 Best Marcin M. -- View this message in context:

Every time I have upgraded via CVS in last few weeks, the queue and agent program doesn't appear to function together. The calls are not getting passed: Agent 308 is logged in and idle. Yet I have a customer that has been on hold for over 8 minutes. Any Ideas? =================================================== pbx*CLI> show agents 301 (Lee) not logged in (musiconhold is

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:17 PM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com> wrote: > > Also we are investigating why we have 420 million types being linked while > it appears that 95-99 % of them are not being used. De anyone know if pch > can help here? My feeling is not much as template instantiation still > generates a ton of weak symbols on the pch users, but I might be

...t the unroller > should not be duplicating dbg.declares, only dbg.values. > I think it's a bug in both places: the backend should tolerate identical, duplicate dbg.declares, and the loop unroller probably shouldn't duplicate dbg.declare, since there is no point. IR is supposed to be duplicatable unless it is marked noduplicate. That was ultimately the fix we applied for PR33157, right? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170919/dea4904b/attachment.html>

...y dbg.values. > > I think it's a bug in both places: the backend should tolerate identical, duplicate dbg.declares, I guess that's fair, yes. -- adrian > and the loop unroller probably shouldn't duplicate dbg.declare, since there is no point. > > IR is supposed to be duplicatable unless it is marked noduplicate. That was ultimately the fix we applied for PR33157, right? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170919/30276e95/attachment.html>

> On Sep 19, 2017, at 6:33 AM, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Björn, > > I don't have any answers, just more confusion. Hopefully someone else can bring some light to this. > > I'm also interested in dbg.declares and what the rules are regarding them since it's not very clear to me at the moment. A dbg.declare

...places: the backend should tolerate >> identical, duplicate dbg.declares, > > I guess that's fair, yes. > > -- adrian > >> and the loop unroller probably shouldn't duplicate dbg.declare, since >> there is no point. >> >> IR is supposed to be duplicatable unless it is marked noduplicate. >> That was ultimately the fix we applied for PR33157, right? >

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2654 wayned@samba.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From wayned@samba.org 2005-04-27 02:21 ------- The generator's setting of the ignore_timeout

Hi, Heiko Schlittermann <hs at schlittermann.de> (Mo 21 Nov 2016 11:50:13 CET): > a) Routing stage > You need to interact with the user database dovecot uses. > Either you access the user database directory (flat file, LDAP, > whatever) or you use the ${readsocket?} feature of Exim to talk to > dovecot. The readsocket trick doesn't seem to work anymore. Using $

Hi, I''m a newbie in both Ruby and Ruby on Rails. I finished the Ruby on Rail Tutorial on Todo list and it was great. But, now I''m trying to understand the logic behind it, that is something that is not obvious on how each one of them ties together. Is there a flowchart that shows how the inner working of Ruby on Rails? In another words, let''s suppose we consider the

For anyone following along on ToT using the gc.statepoint mechanism, you should know that ToT is currently not able to express arbitrary exceptional control flow and relocations along exceptional edges. This is a direct result of moving the gc.statepoint representation to using a token type landingpad. Essentially, we have a design inconsistency where we expect to be able to

This could be ICF. There were lots of issues with ICF on ARM64, but they are not inherently ARM64-specific, they just come up there more often. See https://reviews.llvm.org/D56986 which fixes that. Easiest thing is always to profile or add /time to see what's slow. On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 6:30 AM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com> wrote: > Anyone would know why lld takes