search for: fu1

Dear All! If I pass an object to an assignment function I cannot get it's name by deparse(substitute(argument)), but I get *tmp* and I found no way to get the original name, in the example below it should be "va1". Is there a way? Thanks, Heinz ## example 'fu1<-' <- function(var, value) { print(c(name.of.var=deparse(substitute(var))))} fu1(va1) <- 3 name.of.var "*tmp*" ## desired result: ## name.of.var ## "va1" version _ platform i386-pc-mingw32...

...occupazionale mod.xls") > ## list the spreadsheets > sqlTables(channel) TABLE_CAT TABLE_SCHEM TABLE_NAME 1 c:\\TABELLE DEFINITIVE\\nuova tabella terapia occupazionale mod <NA> 'emi tot 2006 OAI_60g TO FU1$' 2 c:\\TABELLE DEFINITIVE\\nuova tabella terapia occupazionale mod <NA> 'emi tot 2006 OAI_60g TO FU2$' 3 c:\\TABELLE DEFINITIVE\\nuova tabella terapia occupazionale mod <NA> 'emi tot 2006 OAI_60GG divisi$' 4 c:\\TABELLE DEFINITIVE\\nuova tabella terapia occupaziona...

...ed too deeply: infinite recursion / options(expressions=)? I feel that since the function Grx is recursively related, perhaps making the code too complicated too handle. Can anyone let me know if there is any other way to handle this problem? d1=10.5 Grx<-function(x,r) { G0=Grx(x,0) G0=1; fu1<-function(t){exp(-t^2/(2*r*(r+1)))*Grx(x,r-1)} return(integrate(fu1,0,x)$value) } grx<-function(x,r) { Grx(x,r)*exp(-x^2/(2*(r+1))) } ifn<-function(n) { w=n*d1/2;S1=0; for(k in 1:(n-1)) { S1=S1+choose(n,k)*grx(w,k)*grx(w,n-k-1) } return(S1); } ifn(7) Thanks in advance. Shant...

...ed too deeply: infinite recursion / options(expressions=)? I feel that since the function Grx is recursively related, perhaps making the code too complicated too handle. Can anyone let me know if there is any other way to handle this problem? d1=10.5 Grx<-function(x,r) { G0=Grx(x,0) G0=1; fu1<-function(t){exp(-t^2/(2*r*(r+1)))*Grx(x,r-1)} return(integrate(fu1,0,x)$value) } grx<-function(x,r) { Grx(x)*exp(-x^2/(2*(r+1))) } ifn<-function(n) { w=n*d1/2;S1=0; for(k in 1:(n-1)) { S1=S1+choose(n,k)*grx(w,k)*grx(w,n-k-1) } return(S1); } ifn(5) Thanks in advance. Shant...

Thanks for your answer Chris. Nevertheless I just can't see the event you're talking about in my access.log file. I mean the time of the end of listening for each user and the amount of bytes transfered ! Maybe because I'm just a beginner in IceCast... Could you give me an example of a log file (just a part) that shows this notification ? For example on my ShoutCast log tells me :

...making MachinePipeliner work even in a form not using Instruction itineraries, we will be able to run MachinePipeliner's execution test on various machines, even if we do not use it on those machines. Instruction itineraries essentially expresses the following correspondence: opcode ==> {FU1, FU2, ...} and DFAPacketizer uses DFA with opcodes. In order to strictly schedule predicated instructions like SVE, We need to consider that following two instructions use pipeline resources exclusively in the same cycle: MI1 if P ==> {FU1, FU2, ...} MI2 if Q ==> {FU1, FU2, ...} where...

...s. Final writeback waits until all members of the group complete. > > Ideally, you can express your constraints using InstrStage itinerary > entries. I don't see how, in the current scheme, to express that an instruction must wait in FU0 until there are also waiting instructions in FU1, FU2 and FU3. Furthermore, there are certain constraints on what those instructions can be, and which ones will move forward as the next dispatched group, and I think we need to fallback into C++ to deal with them. > If not, then you need to do your own bookkeeping by saving > extra state du...

...mbers of the group > complete. > >> >> Ideally, you can express your constraints using InstrStage itinerary >> entries. > > I don't see how, in the current scheme, to express that an instruction > must wait in FU0 until there are also waiting instructions in FU1, FU2 > and FU3. Furthermore, there are certain constraints on what those > instructions can be, and which ones will move forward as the next > dispatched group, and I think we need to fallback into C++ to deal with > them. Right. I should have mentioned that the static itinerary really...

On Jun 11, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > I'm considering writing more-detailed itineraries for some PowerPC CPUs > that use the 'traditional' instruction grouping scheme. In essence, > this means that multiple instructions will stall in some pipeline stage > until a complete group is formed, then all will continue. > > I expect to

I'm considering writing more-detailed itineraries for some PowerPC CPUs that use the 'traditional' instruction grouping scheme. In essence, this means that multiple instructions will stall in some pipeline stage until a complete group is formed, then all will continue. I expect to provide CPU-specific code to help determine when the currently-waiting instructions would form a group.