search for: feature1

Hi, I have a data.frame that looks something like this. feature 5637 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?1321N1 feature1 -0.568750616 -0.934748758 feature2 -0.913080902 -0.941455172 feature3 0.442477294 -0.257921866 I want to change it to look like this. feature ? ? ?cell.line ? ? value feature1 5637 -0.568750616 feature2 5637 -0.913080902 feature3 5637 0.442477294 feature1 1321N1 -0.934748758 fe...

Dear all, I have a data frame, which looks like this: Subject | Block | Trial | Feature1 | Feature2 .... 1 | 1 | 1 | ... | ... 1 | 1 | 2 | ... | ... 1 | 2 | 1 | ... | ... 1 | 2 | 2 | ... | ... 1 | 3 | 1 | ... | ... ...| ...| ...| ... | ... Can I remove the "Trial" column by averaging all the rows and without using a "for loop"? At the end my data frame should look...

...tomers like "automated answer when outside labor time", "rerouting when Subscriber Absent", and so. These are macro calls embedded in key points inside the dialplan. Since not all customers need/want all features and they (the features) are customized, I named them like [macro-feature1-ClientA], [macro-feature4-ClientF], ... Question: is there some built-in way to know if macro "feature1-ClientA" is defined? Something like ExecIfMacro(feature1-ClientA)?macro(feature1-ClientA):Goto(...). For the moment, we are using an external command like "asterisk -rx '...

...tFeatures to be listed, but where only one in the list has to be enabled for the predicate to be true. The condition string which forms a AssemblerPredicate already allows multiple features to be defined, separated by commas, and this means all of these features must be present. For example, "Feature1,Feature2" means that both Feature1 and Feature2 must be enabled in the Subtarget. I propose extending this using the vertical bar character to mean or, so eg "Feature1|Feature2" requires at least one of these two be enabled. At this stage I don't propose allowing ANDs and ORs to...

Is there a way to enable/disable target features through clang? I found this, https://github.com/avr-llvm/llvm/issues/9, but this seems to be talking about llc -mattr=+feature1,-feature2... Is there something equivalent for clang? -- Rail Shafigulin Software Engineer Esencia Technologies -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160502/da652ea8/attachment.html>

I'm trying to enable/disable a target feature through clang. Here is how my target looks like // Esencia subtarget features //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// def FeatureMul : SubtargetFeature<"mul", "HasMul", "true", "Enable hardware multiplier">; def FeatureDiv

...ntry 140b,143f,feature,142b-140b,144f-143f,142b-141b;\ + .popsection; \ + .pushsection .altinstr_replacement, "ax"; \ +143:; \ + newinstr; \ +144:; \ .popsection -.endm #define old_len 141b-140b #define new_len1 144f-143f @@ -73,27 +71,25 @@ * has @feature1, it replaces @oldinstr with @newinstr1. If CPU has * @feature2, it replaces @oldinstr with @feature2. */ -.macro ALTERNATIVE_2 oldinstr, newinstr1, feature1, newinstr2, feature2 -140: - \oldinstr -141: - .skip -((alt_max_short(new_len1, new_len2) - (old_len)) > 0) * \ - (alt_max_short(new_l...

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:54:33PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > It would be great to hear from kernel people if it works adequately for > what you guys want it for :-) Sure, ping me when you have the final version and I'll try to build gcc with it and do some size comparisons. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:54:33PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > It would be great to hear from kernel people if it works adequately for > what you guys want it for :-) Sure, ping me when you have the final version and I'll try to build gcc with it and do some size comparisons. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the

I use Samba 2.2.12 like print server and all were fine until some XP clients start upgrade to SP2. The "feature box" (see attached feature2.jpg) is absent on SP2 clients (see attached feature1.jpg) but still present for 2K, XP, XP-SP1 clients. Other things look well with SP2 but I guess that absence of this "feature box" probably hide some other problems. How can I fix it? Any comments, suggestion welcome. Regards Arcady Chernyak

...\"\n" \ ALTINSTR_REPLACEMENT(newinstr, feature, 1) \ - ".popsection" + ".popsection\n" + +#define ALTERNATIVE(oldinstr, newinstr, feature) \ + __ALTERNATIVE(".altinstructions", oldinstr, newinstr, feature) #define ALTERNATIVE_2(oldinstr, newinstr1, feature1, newinstr2, feature2)\ OLDINSTR_2(oldinstr, 1, 2) \ @@ -150,7 +154,7 @@ static inline int alternatives_text_reserved(void *start, void *end) ".pushsection .altinstr_replacement, \"ax\"\n" \ ALTINSTR_REPLACEMENT(newinstr1, feature1, 1) \ ALTINSTR_REPLACEMENT(newin...

...eletions(-) diff --git a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in b/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in index a3f1503..548e754 100644 --- a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in +++ b/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ mkfs.btrfs \- create a btrfs filesystem [ \fB\-s\fP\fI sectorsize\fP ] [ \fB\-r\fP\fI rootdir\fP ] [ \fB\-K\fP ] +[ \fB\-O\fP\fI feature1,feature2,...\fP ] [ \fB\-h\fP ] [ \fB\-V\fP ] \fI device\fP [ \fIdevice ...\fP ] @@ -77,6 +78,14 @@ Specify a directory to copy into the newly created fs. \fB\-K\fR, \fB\-\-nodiscard \fR Do not perform whole device TRIM operation by default. .TP +\fB\-O\fR, \fB\-\-features \fIfeature1,feature...

This changes the pv ops code generation to more closely match reality. For example, instead of: callq *0xffffffff81e3a400 (pv_irq_ops.save_fl) vmlinux will now show: pushfq pop %rax nop nop nop nop nop which is what the runtime version of the code will show in most cases. This idea was suggested by Andy Lutomirski. The benefits are: - For the most common runtime cases

This changes the pv ops code generation to more closely match reality. For example, instead of: callq *0xffffffff81e3a400 (pv_irq_ops.save_fl) vmlinux will now show: pushfq pop %rax nop nop nop nop nop which is what the runtime version of the code will show in most cases. This idea was suggested by Andy Lutomirski. The benefits are: - For the most common runtime cases

There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab. You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request by definition compares your working copy against master. This is not very compatible with LLVMs approach to incremental development. For example, if you ask someone to break a large patch into 5 smaller patches, with Phab this is very easy because you can upload the diff