search for: grander

...ix # in pair wise fashion with other columns based upon # even and odd column numbers. # I can do it in a very clunky fashion and I know there # must be a better way. below is a sample matrix and my extremely # clunky code that gets the job done for a small matrix, but i plan to # do this on a much grander scale. any help would be very much appreciated. P.genotype.sample<-matrix(10,10,10) P.genotype.sample[,1]<-c(2,2,1,5,1,1,5,6,1,3) P.genotype.sample[,2]<-c(6,3,3,6,8,1,6,7,2,3) P.genotype.sample[,3]<-c(2,2,2,3,3,2,2,2,3,3) P.genotype.sample[,4]<-c(2,8,8,3,8,2,8,3,4,3) P.genotype.samp...

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > (Mostly trying to re-focus the thread somewhat) > > Given support from Mehdi, Renato, and especially Hal who has contributed > specifically in this area to LLVM as a whole, and no strong objections from > significant contributors (I feel like the primary concerns Intel raised have > been

...;I've probably convinced more people to start using asterisk@home for >this feature than anything else. >Can I input some suggestions; Sure >Need to change the rinky dink call icons (let me know if you need some >better samples) I've thought the same, but my goal is a little grander. We have all employee photos available. Once I get the caller-id integrated with the presence, I plan to link to thumbnails. As an alternative it would not be too hard to make the avatars optional. Look for an update in April, unless my deployment goes very well and I can work on the code while...

I'm looking for a way to efficiently traverse the Metadata structure in reverse, or otherwise find DITypes that refer to another DIType. As an example, say I have a DICompositeType describing a struct. Now I want to find other DITypes containing this type, e.g. a DIDerivedType describing its pointer type, or another struct containing this struct as one of its fields. Is this possible in LLVM

...;I've probably convinced more people to start using asterisk@home for >this feature than anything else. >Can I input some suggestions; Sure >Need to change the rinky dink call icons (let me know if you need some >better samples) I've thought the same, but my goal is a little grander. We have all employee photos available. Once I get the caller-id integrated with the presence, I plan to link to thumbnails. As an alternative it would not be too hard to make the avatars optional. Look for an update in April, unless my deployment goes very well and I can work on the code while...

...he code owner to be the über guru (and having other people > override their decisions would just undermine their authority and the whole > code owner system). Personally I don't really buy this, but I can > understand > the concern. First: this is a relatively minor concern in the grander scheme of things. I generally don't think it will come up often and will get sorted out correctly if it does. However, when it does come up, without being addressed, i suspect it will take a fair amount of time and energy of the community to sort it all out. So maybe it's worth addressing i...

..."mge" mappings which >> respond to the same VID:PID identification and try to guess if some other >> clues about the device fit the particular subdriver. Some reported >> regressions of NUT v2.8.0 vs. v2.7.4 were about changes to this guesswork. >> >> On a grander scale, I think this is among the last large >> NUT-development blockers I had burdening my conscience before unleashing a >> new release (lack of which, in turn, makes many people sad about not >> receiving long-completed bug fixes). Quite a few others were merged during >>...

...important enough performance degradations (often in microbenchmarks, but occasionally in larger settings) smaller compiler improvements (not necessarily in instcombine but around that level) do seem to matter at least in individual contexts. It's not clear how much those actually mattered in a grander scheme of things, though. It sounds like we don't want to add to instcombine due to added cost/complexity, rearchitecting would be hard, it's not clear if incremental changes in instcombine did much per cost, which would make it harder to justify rearchitecting it... What do people think...

...rformance degradations (often in > microbenchmarks, but occasionally in larger settings) smaller compiler > improvements (not necessarily in instcombine but around that level) do > seem to matter at least in individual contexts. It's not clear how much > those actually mattered in a grander scheme of things, though. > > It sounds like we don't want to add to instcombine due to added > cost/complexity, rearchitecting would be hard, it's not clear if > incremental changes in instcombine did much per cost, which would make it > harder to justify rearchitecting it.....

Hi, On 12/11/12 15:11, Meador Inge wrote: > On 11/11/2012 11:58 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >>> Is there a particular sub-system size that makes sense to mark as owned? I have been >>> reworking the library call simplification infrastructure recently and will be happy >>> to sign up as an owner for that. >> >> I think that "directory level"

On 11/11/2012 11:58 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> Is there a particular sub-system size that makes sense to mark as owned? I have been >> reworking the library call simplification infrastructure recently and will be happy >> to sign up as an owner for that. > > I think that "directory level" is the right granularity. If you're interested in signing > up

I''m still relatively new to ROR, but I like what I see with the database-neutral approach of Schemas. In the spirit of keeping it simple and minimizing the number of files and location of information, does ActiveState currently allow me to go ahead and place other low level model information such as validation requirements and associations inside the schema rather than putting it in

On 05/11/2018 08:40 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com > <mailto:yamauchi at google.com>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin > <dberlin at dberlin.org <mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:24