search for: intertwining

I'm using an SVM as I've seen a paper that reported extremely good results. I'm not having such luck. I'm also interested in ideas for other approaches to the problem that can also be applied to general problems (no assuming that we're looking for spirals). Here is my code: library(mlbench) library(e1071) raw <- mlbench.spirals(194, 2) spiral <-

On 6/8/2015 5:08 PM, g wrote: > ie, partition for boot, partition for swap, partition for /, partition > home, partition for usr, partition for var, partition for home2, > partition for what ever. that model is not generally recommended anymore, at least not putting /usr on its own partition, there's just too many issues with that nowdays. I don't like putting /var in its

Hi. I'm trying to plot a pair of intertwined spirals and an svm that separates them. I'm having some trouble. Here's what I tried. > library(mlbench) > library(e1071) Loading required package: class > raw <- mlbench.spirals(200,2) > spiral <- data.frame(class=as.factor(raw$classes), x=raw$x[,1], y=raw$x[,2]) > m <- svm(class~., data=spiral) > plot(m,

What I mean is if I have several clients performing backups at the same time what is the level of atomicity? I ask because of this ... take a look at the following lines from the log file: This is from one client operating. 2006/03/12 22:38:26 [11627] rsync to dlochart/backups/Sunday from cygnus-x1 (127.0.0.1) 2006/03/12 22:38:26 [11627] ./ 2006/03/12 22:38:26 [11627] wrote 28 bytes read 147

Is there are description somewhere of how CELT packs into the .oga file? Trying to reverse engineer it from the intertwined celtenc code is suboptimal. -a

Hi, from a generally pleased new rsync user. I have setup a number of services to be accessible via SSH. For most of them, it has been possible to arrange that clients can use a key agent and ssh's level 2 protocol to gain access without the need of entering passwords more than once, at the start of a session (assuming their keys are not stored in the clear). Most of these services can be

LLVM and Clang both have lots of objects that are passed through many different API boundaries. Things like AliasAnalysis in LLVM or Sema in Clang get threaded all over the place. Over times, refactoring can often cause the parameters (or local variables, or member variables, etc) to become dead. If we notice this, we can often un-thread the interface through our APIs, sometimes even reducing

On 06/08/2015 06:29 PM, Peter wrote: > On 06/09/2015 12:19 PM, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 6/8/2015 5:08 PM, g wrote: >>> ie, partition for boot, partition for swap, partition for /, partition >>> home, partition for usr, partition for var, partition for home2, >>> partition for what ever. >> >> >> that model is not generally recommended

Hi All! I have the question, why reverted the ICH10 support from 7.1? This is the svn commit: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/viewvc/base/releng/?pathrev=186551 What is the PR number of the base of this commit or what is the problem description? I have a motherboard with ich10r with 3 sata2 disc (hitachi) + 1 sata dvd-rw (samsung), without any problem. Sorry for bad spelling or english

On 6 July 2017 at 23:13, Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote: >> Yes, as an extension to VectorType they can be manipulated and passed >> around like normal vectors, load/stored directly, phis, put in llvm >> structs etc. Address computation generates expressions in terms vscale >> and it seems to work well. > > Right, that works out through

My 2c... Even though I understand it might be way off in the future, but we are talking about long term plans here anyway. Also as a VLIW backend maintainer, I just have to say it :) - We do need to have a way to assign bundles much earlier than we do now. And it needs to be intertwined with scheduling (Bundler currently reuses a good chunk of scheduler infrastructure). It is also obvious

I'll add my considerations as a frontend which depends on LLVM. It is a goal of Zig to keep the bootstrapping process to a minimum number of steps (See https://github.com/zig-lang/zig/issues/853). However, we will always depend on LLVM, Clang, and LLD. So that means the bootstrapping process of these 3 projects are inherently intertwined. From the perspective of bootstrapping, ability to

Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> writes: > - We do need to have a way to assign bundles much earlier than we do now. Yeah, I can imagine why this would be useful. > And it needs to be intertwined with scheduling (Bundler currently reuses a > good chunk of scheduler infrastructure). Just to clarify, is the need due to the current bundling implementation of reusing

Hi, I just found out that ZFS triggers a kernel-panic while switching a mounted volume into read-only mode: The system is attached to a Symmetrix, all zfs-io goes through Powerpath: I ran some io-intensive stuff on /tank/foo and switched the device into read-only mode at the same time (symrdf -g bar failover -establish). ZFS went ''bam'' and triggered a Panic: WARNING: /pci at

En r?ponse ? Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>: > BSD licensing has been demonstrated to work in practice, for similar > applications, by a number of high-profile projects, including those > associated with Xiph.org. I believe that in these situations, the In the case of hardware support, the benefits are still not there. > freedom > and continued viability of the software

Hi Mehdi, I really like your idea of having a few "projected" git repositories (i.e. capture all commits that touch llvm/ into llvm.git, all that touch clang/ to clang.git etc.). I think it should solve our problem of llvm-forks-with-downstream changes very nicely (I think we won't have to do anything, as you said). I still want to sleep on it to see if I can spot any issues.

On Dec 9, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Dale, > >> #include <cstdio> >> class A { >> public: >> A() {} >> ~A() {} >> }; >> void f() { >> A a; >> throw 5.0; >> } >> main() { >> try { >> f(); >> } catch(...) { printf("caught\n"); } >> } > > this example

On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, John Chambers wrote: > It wasn't entirely clear what your design goals were, but the general > question of comparing functional method languages (S, CLOS, Dylan) and > OOP languages (Java, etc) is of much interest to me, so here are some > general comments. Maybe we can then iterate on your example, with or > without r-devel. I'll keep it on r-devel

On 01/13/2017 10:19 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Catello, > > LLVM does have a "loop idiom recognition" pass which, in principle, > does exactly that kind of a thing: it recognizes loops that perform > memcpy/memset operations. It does not recognize any target-specific > idioms though and there isn't really much in it that would make such

> On Jul 22, 2016, at 1:16 AM, Simon Taylor via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Ill start by saying Ive skimmed this thread and am not actually a user of LLVM at all, but had some git thoughts that might be worth contributing. > >> On 22 Jul 2016, at 01:16, Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>