search for: pauillac

Hi, I am trying to write code in C for an R package. I need high precision in the form of the mpfr and gmp packages. I have installed mpfr and gmp under the instructions of the following website http://pauillac.inria.fr/cdrom_a_graver/prog/pc/mpfr/eng.htm and I get no errors. I have put the header files (mpfr.h and gmp.h) in the folder C:\Program Files\R\R-2.13.0\include; allowing my c code to identify the header files by incorporating include<gmp.h> and include<mpfr.h>. Unfortunately when I t...

Hello. I've been pulling together a Debian package out of Maxence Guesdon's OCaml bindings for R. Will be available from my website as soon as I get my router to obey me. Here's Maxence's bindings: http://pauillac.inria.fr/~guesdon/ocaml-r.en.html The purpose of this software is to access R from OCaml programs. However, my issue is that after having pulled things to a Debian package, I am completely unfamiliar with the API, and I'm having trouble initialising this module. You'll find below a lis...

Hello. I've been pulling together a Debian package out of Maxence Guesdon's OCaml bindings for R. Will be available from my website as soon as I get my router to obey me. Here's Maxence's bindings: http://pauillac.inria.fr/~guesdon/ocaml-r.en.html The purpose of this software is to access R from OCaml programs. However, my issue is that after having pulled things to a Debian package, I am completely unfamiliar with the API, and I'm having trouble initialising this module. You'll find below a lis...

...ar compilation are correct. My intuition is the same: translation validation sounds far easier than compiler verification. On the other hand general-purpose translation validation does not exist (that I know of) whereas the compiler verification people are making genuine steps forward: http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/publi-by-topic.html#compcert > That may be much easier to achieve, but I am not convinced that the LLVM > team should adopt it as a goal. Their objectives are already complex > enough. I agree, I was thinking of this as a separate project based on a fork of LLVM. If it...

On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 12:10 -0600, John Regehr wrote: > > Don't forget prover. :-) > > Say on that note here's something that I want to see: a formal semantics > for LLVM in for example higher order logic. This would probably not be > that difficult. > > The problem that this solves is that current verified compiler efforts > appear to be highly specific to

...--------------------------------- (1) http://www.ggobi.org/rgtk2 (2) http://gladewin32.sourceforge.net/modules/news/ (3) http://www.ggobi.org/rgtk2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This document was translated from LaTeX by HeVeA (http://pauillac.inria.fr/~maranget/hevea/index.html).

...--------------------------------- (1) http://www.ggobi.org/rgtk2 (2) http://gladewin32.sourceforge.net/modules/news/ (3) http://www.ggobi.org/rgtk2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This document was translated from LaTeX by HeVeA (http://pauillac.inria.fr/~maranget/hevea/index.html).