search for: nests

>> I use this method with filtering unused in nested function args and local >> vars >> in my YAFL frontend (not finished :(( - at this moment generate LLVM >> bytecode but doesn't have all runtime suport code writed) > > So do you mean you pass static links for parent function stack frames as > arguments? How do you generate them? > Sorry, I must more

Hello all, hope all is well this maybe outside of libvirt-users.... Can you nest macvtap devices to ultimately receive a real routable ip on the nested vm? I have a nested vm up and running. Both vm and nested vm are centos 7 on arch linux host. The first vm uses a macvtap in bridge mode receives dhcp from an external dhcp server. I start the second vm and dhclient hangs and never receives an

>> In short: there is no (live) migration support for nested VMX yet. So as >> soon as your guest is using VMX itself ("nVMX"), this is not expected to >> work. > > Hi David, thanks for getting back to us on this. Hi Florian, (sombeody please correct me if I'm wrong) > > I see your point, except the issue Kashyap and I are describing does > not

Here's the situation: We have users who are members of groups and those groups are sometimes members of a 2nd level of groups. If a folder has permissions assigned to a 2nd level group, then the user can not access the share. Doing a "getent group | grep user | grep 2nd_level_group" also returns nothing. Samba seems to not be recognizing that a user is a member of a group under

On 07.02.2018 16:31, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > [Cc: KVM upstream list.] > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 04:11:46PM +0100, Florian Haas wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I hope this is the correct list to discuss this issue; please feel >> free to redirect me otherwise. >> >> I have a nested virtualization setup that looks as follows: >> >> - Host:

Hi David, thanks for the added input! I'm taking the liberty to snip a few paragraphs to trim this email down a bit. On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:07 PM, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote: >> Just to give an example, >> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/inception-how-usable-are-nested-kvm-guests >> from just last September talks explicitly about how "guests can

I am trying to implement an ANOVA on a pair of quantile regression models in R. The anova.rq() function performs a basic check to see whether the models are nested, but I think this check is failing in my case. I think my models are nested despite the anova.rqlist() function saying otherwise. Here is an example where the GLM ANOVA regards the models as nested, but the quantile regression ANOVA

> As an optimization for shallow nested functions (e.g., 3 levels or less), > it seems to me you could just avoid the stack walking entirely and add > $k-1$ arguments to each function at level $k$, i.e., at most 2 arguments > in all. This may even be an easy first implementation. I use this method with filtering unused in nested function args and local vars in my YAFL frontend

I ran into a problem recently trying to update a package which uses S4 methods using a recent beta of R. I think I can reproduce it with a simple example. I have package called `testpkg' in directory testpkg/. In the R/ subdirectory of testpkg/ I have a file called testpkg.R which contains the following two lines: setClass("testpkg", representation(pts = "list"))

Is there a conventional way to test for nested factors? I.e., if 'a' and 'b' are lists of same-length factors, does each level specified by 'a' correspond to exactly one level specified by 'b'? The function below seems to suffice, but I'd be happy to know of a more succinct solution, if it already exists. Thanks, Tim. --- "%nested.in%" <-

Hi R people, I have a very basic question to ask - I'm sorry if it's been asked before, but I searched the archives and could not find an answer. All the examples I found were much more complicated/nuanced versions of the problem - my question is much more simple. I have data with multiple, nested fixed effects (as I understand it, fixed effects are specified by the experimental design

Hello, As part of my project for my MSc, I am looking for a solution to implement nested virtual machines. My current scenario is: - I have a server with AMD Phenom II X6 1100T and 8GB RAM - virtualization enabled at BIOS. - I have installed 64bit CentOS-5.6 with Xen enabled (let''s call it as base1). - On top of base1 I have also installed 64bit CentOS-5.6 (guest1) with Xen enabled and

On Nov 22, 2004, at 12:34 PM, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: >> As an optimization for shallow nested functions (e.g., 3 levels or >> less), it seems to me you could just avoid the stack walking entirely >> and add $k-1$ arguments to each function at level $k$, i.e., at most >> 2 arguments in all. This may even be an easy first implementation. > > I use this method

...t check observations, in which I know the date of the first check, the date of the second check (both currently in Julian date format), the status of the nest at the second check (alive or failed), and the date that the nest hatched (i.e. changed from Incubation stages to Brood-rearing stage). Many nests have more than one record, as there were several nest checks throughout the duration of the nesting attempt. What I want to do is assign a nest Stage variable, either Incubation or Brood-rearing. It's very easy to do so when the second nest check was before the hatch date (incubation), or when...

Hello Xlord, The CPU does have VT support and I already have the nested KVM enabled. Checking the Linux Kernel release notes I saw that the nested kvm feature was implemented in 3.10 but he EPT support is in 3.12. So Centos 7's kernel which is 3.10 does have the EPT support? Is there a way to check that the EPT support is available in the kernel? Thank you, Laurentiu On Thu, Aug 4, 2016,

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 11:26 PM, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote: > On 07.02.2018 16:31, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: >> [Cc: KVM upstream list.] >> >> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 04:11:46PM +0100, Florian Haas wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I hope this is the correct list to discuss this issue; please feel >>> free to redirect me

...ation as a different tool that will probably want fairly substantial changes to the pass pipeline anyway. Yes, I agree. My major concern is that we need to be careful that we don't accidentally make things harder for ourselves. I very much agree with the canonicalization approach, and loop nests can take a bit of preparation (even including loop distribution). At the same time, there are other optimizations that will destroy the canonical structures (of loops, loop nests, etc.), that also need to take place at some point. There should be a place in the optimization sequence, where the...

I haven't been able to fully make sense of the conflicting online information about whether and how to specify nesting structure for a nested, mixed model. I'll describe my experiment and hopefully somebody who knows lme4 well can help. We're measuring the fluorescence intensity of brain slices from frogs that have undergone various treatments. We want to use multcomp to look for

Dear R-Help, I'm hoping to find a Multinomial Nested Logit package in R. It would be great to find something analogous to "PROC MDC" in SAS: > The MDC (Multinomial Discrete Choice) procedure analyzes models > where the > choice set consists of multiple alternatives. This procedure > supports conditional logit, > mixed logit, heteroscedastic extreme value,

On Jul 29, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 7/16/2013 11:38 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >> Since introducing the new TargetTransformInfo analysis, there has been some confusion over the role of target heuristics in IR passes. A few patches have led to interesting discussions. >> >> To centralize the discussion, until we get