search for: getranges

HI, I guess I did sth wrong with the optional argument in the program. but I don't know how should I make it. in my main program: source("getelasticity_overPB.r") crossprice<-getelasticity(mydata,mydatao,"nest")$cross_p is same with crossprice<-getelasticity(mydata,mydatao)$cross_p I don't know why???? In ""getelasticity_overPB.r": I have the

This introduces vringh, which are generic accessors for virtio rings (host side). There's a host-side implementation in vhost, but it assumes that the rings are in userspace, and is tied to the vhost implementation. I have patches to adapt it to use vringh, but I'm pushing this in the next merge window for Sjur, who has CAIF patches which need it. This also includes a test program in

This introduces vringh, which are generic accessors for virtio rings (host side). There's a host-side implementation in vhost, but it assumes that the rings are in userspace, and is tied to the vhost implementation. I have patches to adapt it to use vringh, but I'm pushing this in the next merge window for Sjur, who has CAIF patches which need it. This also includes a test program in

...dupNode->getPointerInfo(), > dupNode->isVolatile(), dupNode->isNonTemporal(), > dupNode->isInvariant(), dupNode->getAlignment(), > dupNode->getTBAAInfo(), dupNode->getRanges()); > However, my problem now is that it will re-use the same load still. If I change something, like setting volatile to true for example, it will create a new node, but otherwise it will not. Any ideas? > -Joe > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Joseph Pusdesris <joe at pus...

...e named region to and from Excel. In order to read a named region with the readNamedRegion function you need to know it's name. You can check is a name exists with existsName, but you still have to know the name. Is there a way to actually get a list of the named regions in XLConnect sinilar to getRanges in the xlsx package. On that point: what is the difference between XLConnect and xlsx and when should you use which? regards Christiaan [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

> On 24 Mar 2015, at 14:55, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Rinaldini Julien > <julien.rinaldini at heig-vd.ch> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I want to *tag* some functions with some *flags*. I was using annotate((“myFlag”)) and everything was working fine until I tried on ObjC method. It seems that clang just

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at me.com> wrote: > On 2009-09-24, at 18:56, OvermindDL1 wrote: > > Out of curiosity, what code in Clang is optimized by doing a > pointer derefence then compare to 0, rather then just comparing two > points directly? Does not seem that efficient when laid out like that, > which is why I am curious what

...dupNode->getPointerInfo(), dupNode->isVolatile(), dupNode->isNonTemporal(), dupNode->isInvariant(), dupNode->getAlignment(), dupNode->getTBAAInfo(), dupNode->getRanges()); However, my problem now is that it will re-use the same load still. If I change something, like setting volatile to true for example, it will create a new node, but otherwise it will not. Any ideas? -Joe On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Joseph Pusdesris <joe at pusdesris.com> wrote:...

From: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> It seemed like a good idea, but it's actually a pain when we get more than 32 feature bits. Just change it to a u32 for now. Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland at google.com> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck

From: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> It seemed like a good idea, but it's actually a pain when we get more than 32 feature bits. Just change it to a u32 for now. Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland at google.com> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck

From: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> It seemed like a good idea, but it's actually a pain when we get more than 32 feature bits. Just change it to a u32 for now. Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland at google.com> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck

From: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> It seemed like a good idea, but it's actually a pain when we get more than 32 feature bits. Just change it to a u32 for now. Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland at google.com> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck

From: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> It seemed like a good idea, but it's actually a pain when we get more than 32 feature bits. Just change it to a u32 for now. Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland at google.com> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck

From: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> It seemed like a good idea, but it's actually a pain when we get more than 32 feature bits. Just change it to a u32 for now. Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland at google.com> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck

From: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> It seemed like a good idea, but it's actually a pain when we get more than 32 feature bits. Just change it to a u32 for now. Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland at google.com> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck

From: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> It seemed like a good idea, but it's actually a pain when we get more than 32 feature bits. Just change it to a u32 for now. Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland at google.com> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck

From: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> It seemed like a good idea, but it's actually a pain when we get more than 32 feature bits. Just change it to a u32 for now. Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland at google.com> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck

From: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> It seemed like a good idea, but it's actually a pain when we get more than 32 feature bits. Just change it to a u32 for now. Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland at google.com> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck

From: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> It seemed like a good idea, but it's actually a pain when we get more than 32 feature bits. Just change it to a u32 for now. Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland at google.com> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck

It seemed like a good idea to use bitmap for features in struct virtio_device, but it's actually a pain, and seems to become even more painful when we get more than 32 feature bits. Just change it to a u32 for now. Based on patch by Rusty. Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <dahi at linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Cornelia