search for: normative

...d hope I will not seem ignorant in this post. I am currently using the plspm package by Gaston Sanchez accompanied by his text book. I have attempted to create a square matrix, which has seemed successful. I used the following code: > "Attitude" = c(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) > "Normative Beliefs" = c(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) > "Subjective Norm" = c(0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) > "Control Beliefs" = c(1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) > "Perceived Behavioural Control" = c(0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0) > "Intention" = c(0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0)...

...6 PM, Rui Barradas <ruipbarradas at sapo.pt> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Your code throws an error before the line you've mentioned: >> >>> library(plspm) >>> >>> "Attitude" = c(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) >>> >>> "Normative Beliefs" = c(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) >>> >>> "Subjective Norm" = c(0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) >>> >>> "Control Beliefs" = c(1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) >>> >>> "Perceived Behavioural Control" = c(0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0,...

...quire this of a conforming implementation. It's > going > > to be the source of so many problems otherwise > > To confirm - what you'd like is clarification in the standard that > recursive parallelism is supported? > > I think this is feasible; I'd suggest a non-normative note. I could > write a short committee paper on this (targeting C++20) for the next > meeting. > > -- > Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory > ISO C++ Committee Member > CppCon and C++Now Program Chair > > Compiler ICE Hunter > -...

Hello all, I''m new to prototype and javascript isn''t my strong point. I''m trying to get a simple test script to work, which is turning out to be a little harder than I thought. I have a bunch of fields that I need to be able to switch on and off using one of a few hashes. In the example below I''m trying to get one to work. The problem occurs when I try to

...sembly/design/issues/214>>. I agree, the first > sentence you quote doesn't seem correct. Perhaps someone more familiar > with the IEEE 754 development can give more insight. It’s a bit more subtle. The minNum, maxNum, minNumMag, and maxNumMag operations have been removed from the normative clauses of IEEE 754 201x entirely, and replaced with a set of non-normative recommended operations. This is not a great situation, because it doesn’t provide much clarity for complier writers or CPU architects, but it at least removes the existing operations which were known to be critically flawed...

Hi, The specification for the llvm.minnum/llvm.maxnum intrinsics is too unclear right now to usefully optimize. There are two problems. First the expected behavior for signaling NaNs needs to be clarified. Second, whether the returned value is expected to be canonicalized (as if by llvm.canonicalize). Currently according to the LangRef: Follows the IEEE-754 semantics for minNum, which also

...e function that is the subject of an explicit instantiation declaration will still be implicitly instantiated when odr-used so that the body can be considered for inlining, but that no out-of-line copy of the inline function would be generated in the translation unit. — end note ] Only reading the normative wording, it seems like LLVM should leave the instantiation there because it can't actually assume that there will be a definition provided elsewhere (yes, despite the extern template declaration, because the function is inline). Then, the non-normative note seems to be approving of what LLVM is...

...ns in one place are incomplete or even wrong, unless some other place is also considered. You need to be a Standards guru to really know where to find all the relevant clauses. Even then, as I pointed out in my prior post on this topic, the Standard itself can be inconsistent, or fail to achieve a normative requirement despite the intent of the committee. This is the case with integer representation rules in C99: it looks reasonable but is actually non-normative gibberish. However the rules do have an impact, and they have a very unfortunate impact in over-constraining integer representations. In par...

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Evandro Menezes <emenezes at codeaurora.org> wrote: ... > Figure 3.3 on page 16 of www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf is not > normative. See foot note 7 in the same page. Figure 3.4 on page 21 > confirms that the use of a frame-pointer is optional. > > So, if one doesn't use ENTER in the prologue and uses RSP to access local > variables, RBP may be used as a calee-saved GPR. I am not sure if I am completely follo...

...t; wrote: > > This won’t happen with volatile load/store This is mostly true today, but AFAICT the LLVM memory model doesn’t actually offer this guarantee. It merely says that LLVM treats volatile like C / C++ treats volatile… which isn’t much of a guarantee because C / C++ volatile doesn’t normatively mean anything. Specifically, we cannot really honor this when volatile bitfields are used for which memory operations don’t exist: struct { volatile int a : 12; volatile int b : 4; } s; As things stand, we haven’t promised that we won’t combine adjacent volatile stores, and C / C++ certainl...

...mplete or even wrong, unless > some other place is also considered. You need to be a Standards guru > to really know where to find all the relevant clauses. > > Even then, as I pointed out in my prior post on this topic, the Standard > itself can be inconsistent, or fail to achieve a normative requirement > despite the intent of the committee. This is the case with integer > representation rules in C99: it looks reasonable but is actually > non-normative gibberish. However the rules do have an impact, > and they have a very unfortunate impact in over-constraining > integer...

Dear Experts, I am new to the mailing list. I have an experience of 4 years working on MPEG Audios - MP3, AAC, AAC+. I was interested with Ogg Vorbis because of its unique way of encoding. I want to get documentation on Ogg Vorbis Encoding and Decoding procedures ( step by step as for a developer). Thanks in advance, Rgds Datta __________________________________________________ Do You

Hi, I'm working on porting libopus and I'd like to get information how to test Opus Encoder properly. There is information in RFC6716, that Opus Decoder's test files (http://opus-codec.org/testvectors/opus_testvectors.tar.gz) were created specifically to exercise all aspects of the decoder. Using these files, a custom implementation of libopus can be verified to be sure the Opus

...t;> ??Is there any test files created specifically to exercise all aspects >> ??of the encoder? If not, can you recommend some steps to verify a >> ??custom implementation of libopus in encoding mode ? > ?There is no test for the encoder because unlike the decoder, it is not > ?normatively specified and it keeps improving over time. The best way to > ?check your encoder for non-bit-exact numerical issues is to use a tool > ?like PQevalAudio: > ?http://www-mmsp.ece.mcgill.ca/documents/Downloads/PQevalAudio/ > > ?Cheers, > > ?????????Jean-Marc > ?_____________...

Cameron, Figure 3.3 on page 16 of www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf is not normative. See foot note 7 in the same page. Figure 3.4 on page 21 confirms that the use of a frame-pointer is optional. So, if one doesn't use ENTER in the prologue and uses RSP to access local variables, RBP may be used as a calee-saved GPR. -- Evandro Menezes Austin, TX emenez...

On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:58:29AM -0500, Cameron McInally wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Evandro Menezes <emenezes at codeaurora.org> > wrote: > ... > > Figure 3.3 on page 16 of www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf is not > > normative. See foot note 7 in the same page. Figure 3.4 on page 21 > > confirms that the use of a frame-pointer is optional. > > > > So, if one doesn't use ENTER in the prologue and uses RSP to access local > > variables, RBP may be used as a calee-saved GPR. > > I am not...

> > At least for 32bit x86 reserving another register as alternative frame > pointer is very heavy. The above would allow normal spill logic to > decide when to keep a reference in register and when not. It also reuses > existing functionality as much as possible. > Hi Joerg, Yes, this was a problem in my implementation also. Empirically, for the chips I work on, reserving the

On 11/24/2012 02:08 AM, Jakub Staszak wrote: > Hello, > > I was wondering about the case below. I tried to find any information in C standard, but I found nothing. > In this case, variable "i" is uninitialized, but it is the _same_ value passed as an argument, so only of "a" or "b" should be printed. > > What I found is that with -O2: > LLVM

Hi List; Where I determine the codec to be used for the SIP Trunk (between Asterik and another SIP softswitch)? Regards Bilal ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433

Hello, I was wondering about the case below. I tried to find any information in C standard, but I found nothing. In this case, variable "i" is uninitialized, but it is the _same_ value passed as an argument, so only of "a" or "b" should be printed. What I found is that with -O2: LLVM (trunk) prints both "a" and "b" GCC (4.2) prints both