Displaying 10 results from an estimated 10 matches for "lc2".
Did you mean:
l2
2010 Jul 05
0
lc2 Model
Dear developping team,
I am a graduate student trying to fit a dose response curve for my
thesis. I found one publication talking about the lc2-Modell in the drc
Function (drm package), but I didn't find any related info how to create
my data.
fct = lc.2()
"was not found" by my R. How do I get any info on that please?
First, I tried the LL.2 model, but it doesnot really fit as my data are
not logistically, but on a linear...
2005 Aug 22
2
problem building dendrograms to use with heatmap()
..., 'members')
attr(ans, 'members') <- members
attr(ans, 'height') <- height
attr(ans, 'leaf') <- F
attr(ans, 'midpoint') <- (members - 1)/2
attr(ans, 'class') <- 'dendrogram'
ans
}
lc1 <- dendro.leaf('c1')
lc2 <- dendro.leaf('c2')
lc3 <- dendro.leaf('c3')
nc1 <- dendro.merge(lc1, lc2, 0.1)
nc2 <- dendro.merge(nc1, lc3, 0.2)
plot(nc2)
lr1 <- dendro.leaf('r1')
lr2 <- dendro.leaf('r2')
lr3 <- dendro.leaf('r3')
nr1 <- dendro.merge(lr2, lr3, 0.1...
2011 Jul 25
2
[LLVMdev] dragon egg adding extra characters to function names
...amed by dragonegg.
For example, when I compile the acos implementation with plain gcc I get:
$ nm acos.o
0000000000000000 r .LC1
0000000000000048 r .LC10
0000000000000050 r .LC11
0000000000000058 r .LC12
0000000000000060 r .LC13
0000000000000068 r .LC14
0000000000000070 r .LC15
0000000000000008 r .LC2
0000000000000010 r .LC3
0000000000000018 r .LC4
0000000000000020 r .LC5
0000000000000028 r .LC6
0000000000000030 r .LC7
0000000000000038 r .LC8
0000000000000040 r .LC9
0000000000000000 T __GI_acos
0000000000000000 T __ieee754_acos
U __ieee754_sqrt
0000000000000000 T acos
but when...
2011 Jul 26
0
[LLVMdev] dragon egg adding extra characters to function names
...e acos implementation with plain gcc I get:
>
> $ nm acos.o
> 0000000000000000 r .LC1
> 0000000000000048 r .LC10
> 0000000000000050 r .LC11
> 0000000000000058 r .LC12
> 0000000000000060 r .LC13
> 0000000000000068 r .LC14
> 0000000000000070 r .LC15
> 0000000000000008 r .LC2
> 0000000000000010 r .LC3
> 0000000000000018 r .LC4
> 0000000000000020 r .LC5
> 0000000000000028 r .LC6
> 0000000000000030 r .LC7
> 0000000000000038 r .LC8
> 0000000000000040 r .LC9
> 0000000000000000 T __GI_acos
> 0000000000000000 T __ieee754_acos
>...
2011 Jul 27
2
[LLVMdev] dragon egg adding extra characters to function names
...gt;
> > $ nm acos.o
> > 0000000000000000 r .LC1
> > 0000000000000048 r .LC10
> > 0000000000000050 r .LC11
> > 0000000000000058 r .LC12
> > 0000000000000060 r .LC13
> > 0000000000000068 r .LC14
> > 0000000000000070 r .LC15
> > 0000000000000008 r .LC2
> > 0000000000000010 r .LC3
> > 0000000000000018 r .LC4
> > 0000000000000020 r .LC5
> > 0000000000000028 r .LC6
> > 0000000000000030 r .LC7
> > 0000000000000038 r .LC8
> > 0000000000000040 r .LC9
> > 0000000000000000 T __GI_acos
> > 000000000000...
2008 Feb 24
0
Zeroing sensitive memory chunks [Was: Security Flaw in Popular Disk Encryption Technologies]
...this is the assembler code
of bar31 (taken from 'gcc -O -S -o test.s test.c'):
-----
.globl bar31
.type bar31, @function
bar31:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp, %ebp
subl $40, %esp
leal -31(%ebp), %eax
movl %eax, 4(%esp)
movl $.LC2, (%esp)
call scanf
leave
ret
.size bar31, .-bar31
.section .rodata.str1.1
.LC3:
.string "%30s"
.text
.p2align 4,,15
-----
The simple PoC session transcript follows:
-----
$ cat poc.c
#include <ctype.h>
#inc...
2009 May 21
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote:
> Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass?
> I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would
> mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction
> and just deleting code for handling its Expand and Promote. Are you
> anticipating something more
2009 May 20
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
On May 20, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman
> <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector
>>
>> operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from
>>
>> LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant
2009 May 21
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
...Tmp2 = LegalizeOp(Tmp2); // Relegalize new nodes.
- break;
- }
- }
- break;
- case Expand: {
- MVT VT = LHS.getValueType();
- if (VT == MVT::f32 || VT == MVT::f64) {
- // Expand into one or more soft-fp libcall(s).
- RTLIB::Libcall LC1 = RTLIB::UNKNOWN_LIBCALL, LC2 = RTLIB::UNKNOWN_LIBCALL;
- switch (cast<CondCodeSDNode>(CC)->get()) {
- case ISD::SETEQ:
- case ISD::SETOEQ:
- LC1 = (VT == MVT::f32) ? RTLIB::OEQ_F32 : RTLIB::OEQ_F64;
- break;
- case ISD::SETNE:
- case ISD::SETUNE:
- LC1 = (VT == MVT::f32) ?...
2008 Jun 30
4
Rebuild of kernel 2.6.9-67.0.20.EL failure
Hello list.
I'm trying to rebuild the 2.6.9.67.0.20.EL kernel, but it fails even without
modifications.
How did I try it?
Created a (non-root) build environment (not a mock )
Installed the kernel.scr.rpm and did a
rpmbuild -ba --target=`uname -m` kernel-2.6.spec 2> prep-err.log | tee
prep-out.log
The build failed at the end:
Processing files: kernel-xenU-devel-2.6.9-67.0.20.EL
Checking