search for: misapprehension

...rizontal=TRUE) i.e. spelling out ``horizontal'' in full rather than trying to use ``partial argument matching''. However it seems to me that partial argument matching ***ought*** to work --- i.e. it ought to be possible to make it work --- in such a context. Am I suffering from a misapprehension? cheers, Rolf Turner rolf at math.unb.ca -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "bo...

...MCJIT (particularly for ARM), and am a little horrified to discover no ability to compile, and just as importantly to recompile, at a function level. This is absolutely mandatory for my project. I have been looking enviously at MCJIT's ARM+DWARF support for a couple of years and was under the misapprehension that MCJIT was attempting to be a *drop-in* replacement for JIT. So I wasn't overly concerned about the primary JIT being largely neglected. This is obviously my fault, I wasn't paying close enough attention. I am now wondering what the LLVM project, in the large, plans regarding just-in-...

...MCJIT (particularly for ARM), and am a little horrified to discover no ability to compile, and just as importantly to recompile, at a function level. This is absolutely mandatory for my project. I have been looking enviously at MCJIT's ARM+DWARF support for a couple of years and was under the misapprehension that MCJIT was attempting to be a *drop-in* replacement for JIT. So I wasn't overly concerned about the primary JIT being largely neglected. This is obviously my fault, I wasn't paying close enough attention. I am now wondering what the LLVM project, in the large, plans regarding just-in-...

I just tried this with CentOS 5.3 as well, and got exactly the same symptoms and dmesg output. (As a point of comparison, Ubunu 8.04 on my work laptop is able to access the drive.) Obviously "not detected" is a misapprehension, though I'm puzzled why "lsusb" doesn't show it. The device is there even though the partition table can't be read. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bart Schaefer <barton.schaefer at gmail.com> Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [CentOS] USB...

...; no ability to compile, and just as importantly to recompile, at a function > level. **** > > This is absolutely mandatory for my project. **** > > ** ** > > I have been looking enviously at MCJIT's ARM+DWARF support for a **** > > couple of years and was under the misapprehension that MCJIT was **** > > attempting to be a *drop-in* replacement for JIT. So I wasn't overly**** > > concerned about the primary JIT being largely neglected. This is obviously > **** > > my fault, I wasn't paying close enough attention.**** > > ** ** > > I...

...MCJIT (particularly for ARM), and am a little horrified to discover no ability to compile, and just as importantly to recompile, at a function level. This is absolutely mandatory for my project. I have been looking enviously at MCJIT's ARM+DWARF support for a couple of years and was under the misapprehension that MCJIT was attempting to be a *drop-in* replacement for JIT. So I wasn't overly concerned about the primary JIT being largely neglected. This is obviously my fault, I wasn't paying close enough attention. I am now wondering what the LLVM project, in the large, plans regarding just-in-...

...MCJIT (particularly for ARM), and am a little horrified to discover no ability to compile, and just as importantly to recompile, at a function level. This is absolutely mandatory for my project. I have been looking enviously at MCJIT's ARM+DWARF support for a couple of years and was under the misapprehension that MCJIT was attempting to be a *drop-in* replacement for JIT. So I wasn't overly concerned about the primary JIT being largely neglected. This is obviously my fault, I wasn't paying close enough attention. I am now wondering what the LLVM project, in the large, plans regarding just-in-...

I'd like to elicit comments on what I am sure is an ancient topic, but one for which I can't seem to google up a satisfactory reference. I'm curious about the laissez-faire attitude adopted in anova.lm and friends regarding non-nested hypothesis tests. I was under the misapprehension until yesterday that attempts to test non-nested hypotheses, i.e. compare lm objects with non-nested design matrices, produced an error. On the contrary, not even a warning is generated. The Ur text on this sort of thing (aka The White Book) seems to suggest (p 210) that test statistics are com...

...; no ability to compile, and just as importantly to recompile, at a function > level. **** > > This is absolutely mandatory for my project. **** > > **** > > I have been looking enviously at MCJIT's ARM+DWARF support for a **** > > couple of years and was under the misapprehension that MCJIT was **** > > attempting to be a *drop-in* replacement for JIT. So I wasn't overly**** > > concerned about the primary JIT being largely neglected. This is obviously > **** > > my fault, I wasn't paying close enough attention.**** > > **** > > I...

...am a little horrified to > discover > no ability to compile, and just as importantly to recompile, at a function > level. > This is absolutely mandatory for my project. > > I have been looking enviously at MCJIT's ARM+DWARF support for a > couple of years and was under the misapprehension that MCJIT was > attempting to be a *drop-in* replacement for JIT. So I wasn't overly > concerned about the primary JIT being largely neglected. This is obviously > my fault, I wasn't paying close enough attention. > > I am now wondering what the LLVM project, in the large,...

It seems that the following should work: > x<-read.table('1A.tab',header=T,skip=1); > mode(x[1]) [1] "list" > x[1] p01 R1-00 0.0295 R1-01 0.0283 R1-02 0.0145 R1-03 0.0235 R1-04 0.0339 R1-05 0.0239 R1-06 0.0414 R1-07 0.0259 > hist(x[1]) Error: hist: x must be numeric > as.numeric(x[1]) Error: (list) object cannot be coerced to vector type 14 >

Hi, I looking for a graphic device on Linux with more functionalities than the X11 (). I find the plotAndPlayGTK package and the playwith function. It is a good device. It is possible to make it default in my system. Now I need: > library(plotAndPlayGTK ) Loading required package: RGtk2 Loading required package: cairoDevice > > playwith(plot(1,1)) Error in plot.new() : figure margins

Do the LLVM Setjmp/Longjmp intrinsics interact with C++ exception handling and execute C++ cleanup actions? I compiled a small example using setjmp/longjmp using clang and they did not execute C++ cleanup actions and calling longjmp bypassed calling destructors on objects that were allocated between the call to setjmp and longjmp. I’m wondering if the LLVM intrinsics behave differently from

I looked into this further. ld64 has a macho_nlist abstraction over the various underlying nlist structures [1]. On x86-64, the P::getP referenced in n_value will resolve to [2], which in turn goes to [3], which calls OSReadLittleInt64. On a little endian machine, OSReadLittleEndian just calls _OSReadInt64 [4], which in turn does a pointer arithmetic and cast and then dereferences the pointer [5].

...MCJIT (particularly for ARM), and am a little horrified to discover no ability to compile, and just as importantly to recompile, at a function level. This is absolutely mandatory for my project. I have been looking enviously at MCJIT's ARM+DWARF support for a couple of years and was under the misapprehension that MCJIT was attempting to be a *drop-in* replacement for JIT. So I wasn't overly concerned about the primary JIT being largely neglected. This is obviously my fault, I wasn't paying close enough attention. I am now wondering what the LLVM project, in the large, plans regarding just-in-...

...ba member server this > way, but it feels wrong, and it's definitely not the standard way to > do things. > > Besides, on the Samba member server also, the domain Administrator > account behaves like a normal user account, not like the root I think you may be operating under a misapprehension, Windows users are just Windows users and Unix users are just Unix users. You can map Windows users to Unix users or make them Unix users by giving them a uidNumber attribute or using the winbind 'rid' backend, but making a Windows user a Unix user, just gives it the same rights as any othe...

...>> way, but it feels wrong, and it's definitely not the standard way to >> do things. >> >> Besides, on the Samba member server also, the domain Administrator >> account behaves like a normal user account, not like the root > I think you may be operating under a misapprehension, Windows users are > just Windows users and Unix users are just Unix users. You can map > Windows users to Unix users or make them Unix users by giving them a > uidNumber attribute or using the winbind 'rid' backend, but making a > Windows user a Unix user, just gives it the sam...

...; no ability to compile, and just as importantly to recompile, at a function > level. **** > > This is absolutely mandatory for my project. **** > > **** > > I have been looking enviously at MCJIT's ARM+DWARF support for a **** > > couple of years and was under the misapprehension that MCJIT was **** > > attempting to be a *drop-in* replacement for JIT. So I wasn't overly**** > > concerned about the primary JIT being largely neglected. This is obviously > **** > > my fault, I wasn't paying close enough attention.**** > > **** > > I...

Hi folks, Hardware/OS =========== - Samba AD DC ver. 4.9.1 (compiled using standard CentOS tools and libraries) functions only as AD server (authentication, AD services), migrated from old Samba NT PDC through classicupgrade, OS CentOS 7.5, kernel 4.9.40 (elrepo-lt), VM under Xen 4.9.0 - Samba AD member server ver. 4.7.1 (from distribution) with different shares for different user groups, 

...importantly to recompile, at a >> function level. **** >> >> This is absolutely mandatory for my project. **** >> >> **** >> >> I have been looking enviously at MCJIT's ARM+DWARF support for a **** >> >> couple of years and was under the misapprehension that MCJIT was **** >> >> attempting to be a *drop-in* replacement for JIT. So I wasn't overly**** >> >> concerned about the primary JIT being largely neglected. This is obviously >> **** >> >> my fault, I wasn't paying close enough attention.****...