search for: lmo

...our assumptions about CPUs well > without some simplifications which are based on what you want to > have. > > I say that SYNC_ACQUIRE/etc follows what you expect for smp_acquire > etc (basing on that document). And at least two CPU models were > tested with my patches (see it in LMO) for that last year and that > instructions are implemented now in engineering kernel. > > If you have something else in mind, you can ask me. But I prefer to > do not deviate too much from Documentation/memory-barriers.txt, for > exam - if it asks to have memory barrier somewhere,...

...our assumptions about CPUs well > without some simplifications which are based on what you want to > have. > > I say that SYNC_ACQUIRE/etc follows what you expect for smp_acquire > etc (basing on that document). And at least two CPU models were > tested with my patches (see it in LMO) for that last year and that > instructions are implemented now in engineering kernel. > > If you have something else in mind, you can ask me. But I prefer to > do not deviate too much from Documentation/memory-barriers.txt, for > exam - if it asks to have memory barrier somewhere,...

...hout some simplifications which are based on what you want to > >>have. > >> > >>I say that SYNC_ACQUIRE/etc follows what you expect for smp_acquire > >>etc (basing on that document). And at least two CPU models were > >>tested with my patches (see it in LMO) for that last year and that > >>instructions are implemented now in engineering kernel. > >> > >>If you have something else in mind, you can ask me. But I prefer to > >>do not deviate too much from Documentation/memory-barriers.txt, for > >>exam - if it...

...hout some simplifications which are based on what you want to > >>have. > >> > >>I say that SYNC_ACQUIRE/etc follows what you expect for smp_acquire > >>etc (basing on that document). And at least two CPU models were > >>tested with my patches (see it in LMO) for that last year and that > >>instructions are implemented now in engineering kernel. > >> > >>If you have something else in mind, you can ask me. But I prefer to > >>do not deviate too much from Documentation/memory-barriers.txt, for > >>exam - if it...

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > An the only point - please use an appropriate SYNC_* barriers instead of > heavy bold hammer. That stuff was design explicitly to support the > requirements of Documentation/memory-barriers.txt That's madness. That document changes from version to version as to what we _think_ the actual hardware does. It is _NOT_ a

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > An the only point - please use an appropriate SYNC_* barriers instead of > heavy bold hammer. That stuff was design explicitly to support the > requirements of Documentation/memory-barriers.txt That's madness. That document changes from version to version as to what we _think_ the actual hardware does. It is _NOT_ a

...actually doesn't fit your assumptions about CPUs well without some simplifications which are based on what you want to have. I say that SYNC_ACQUIRE/etc follows what you expect for smp_acquire etc (basing on that document). And at least two CPU models were tested with my patches (see it in LMO) for that last year and that instructions are implemented now in engineering kernel. If you have something else in mind, you can ask me. But I prefer to do not deviate too much from Documentation/memory-barriers.txt, for exam - if it asks to have memory barrier somewhere, then I assume the code...

Dear R users, How do I drop multiplication terms from a formula using update? e.g. forml=as.formula("Surv(time, status) ~ x1+x2+A*x3+A*x4+B*x5+strata(sex)") #I would like to drop all instances of variable A (the main effect and its interactions). The following: updated.forml=update(forml, ~ . -A) #gives me this: #Surv(time, status) ~ x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 + B + x5 + strata(sex) + A:x3 +

...PUs well >> without some simplifications which are based on what you want to >> have. >> >> I say that SYNC_ACQUIRE/etc follows what you expect for smp_acquire >> etc (basing on that document). And at least two CPU models were >> tested with my patches (see it in LMO) for that last year and that >> instructions are implemented now in engineering kernel. >> >> If you have something else in mind, you can ask me. But I prefer to >> do not deviate too much from Documentation/memory-barriers.txt, for >> exam - if it asks to have memory...

...eating a slightly modified version of aggregate(). But it made me wonder whether this is a bug or a feature in aggregate(). ?rjp On Mar 25, 2018, at 6:00 AM, r-devel-request at r-project.org<mailto:r-devel-request at r-project.org> wrote: Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:08:33 +0000 (UTC) From: lmo <lukemolson at yahoo.com<mailto:lukemolson at yahoo.com>> To: "R-devel at r-project.org<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>" <R-devel at r-project.org<mailto:R-devel at r-project.org>> Subject: [Rd] aggregate() naming -- bug or feature Message-ID: <1099191693...

Although it seems to be pretty weird to enter a numeric vector of length one that is not an integer as the first argument to sample(), the results do not seem to match what is documented in the manual. In addition, the results below do not support the use of round rather than truncate in the documentation. Consider the code below. The first sentence in the details section says: "If x has

...vVHl9tVJM%m<aDZ*ug_f(g59qV;bi=U*Z|kGJz*NJi4T;91oUg zaHUy8i4UJ;nvyDw at 2<E#&hMwLRITrLzvMU~OpI!hChq4~p~}b<D5+thYz^SOyrq7% z{&;ZiO1NLM!&=vb9}r9r{%X`%pGs^ZgH(-q6nD-2q=)*W?ipN}Vs}u0rI%%5 at Y-q# zu$AYHFYo$LJ~mOt?}Pn5kE**d<_FmNj)j)h&#bK5jsT0lVj069Shpq$JDS<cl~ecc z02mi-mMiVjLMo1AaEY(inr|RF`CR7Juz+AFlg$j12w>jC1L;TAlt20ncb4Jj5#=^J zYlD&|mgqPMfM~>k@}D at _<cuPLeXQuPaqHfgcbyrwcHZ9gC2AzmaaA_nH?q92Y%GWW zh8Rk)iqkOoEr3=K0Q}edVbylX?yX~9eZQ5KWnWcgRB- at lSqgZt)Kk44Bh;8w$K!RT z-2u<WSb<R!%mL6QHvrmS`c;G_b=K#yREKbNAAfb+)&y;nIsmh>CO0FkmnSB5oF$H4 zkW$&aUcXN...