search for: permeable

Hi, I am very confused with constructing the wilcox.test in R. I have two populations 'original' and 'test'. I want to know if the 'test' is generally 'lower' than original. I use alpha of 0.05. So do I write the function as wilcox.test(original, test, alternative="l")? or wlcox.test(original, test, alternative = "g")? or wilcox.test(test,

I am using the R statistical package in a pretty straightforward manner, just interested in getting summary statistics and reliable estimates of means, variances, confidence intervals, p-values using standard tests, etc. I've been using the generalized estimating equation package because I often deal with repeatedly sampled pairs of data from the same source, and my reading (and my

...> > >> $ clang a.o b.o c.o > > > > If I understood you correctly, while doing ThinLTO on a.o, we could import > from b.o and c.o (this is possible since the summaries are available), > while we won’t see a.o when doing FullLTO for b.o/c.o. (i.e., the previous > non-permeable barrier between ThinLTO and FullLTO groups will become > permeable in one direction). > It could be permeable in both direction: b.o+c.o become "like a single ThinLTO object" after they get merged. > However, do you think by doing this, we will achieve a better performance &g...

...e LTO group and the ThinLTO >> objects >> $ clang a.o b.o c.o If I understood you correctly, while doing ThinLTO on a.o, we could import from b.o and c.o (this is possible since the summaries are available), while we won’t see a.o when doing FullLTO for b.o/c.o. (i.e., the previous non-permeable barrier between ThinLTO and FullLTO groups will become permeable in one direction). However, do you think by doing this, we will achieve a better performance than doing ThinLTO backend for all of the files (a.o, b.o, c.o)? Thank you! Katya. From: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> Sent: T...

...e LTO group and the ThinLTO >> objects >> $ clang a.o b.o c.o If I understood you correctly, while doing ThinLTO on a.o, we could import from b.o and c.o (this is possible since the summaries are available), while we won’t see a.o when doing FullLTO for b.o/c.o. (i.e., the previous non-permeable barrier between ThinLTO and FullLTO groups will become permeable in one direction). It could be permeable in both direction: b.o+c.o become "like a single ThinLTO object" after they get merged. I see… However, do you think by doing this, we will achieve a better performance than doing T...

...> > >> $ clang a.o b.o c.o > > > > If I understood you correctly, while doing ThinLTO on a.o, we could import > from b.o and c.o (this is possible since the summaries are available), > while we won’t see a.o when doing FullLTO for b.o/c.o. (i.e., the previous > non-permeable barrier between ThinLTO and FullLTO groups will become > permeable in one direction). > > > > It could be permeable in both direction: b.o+c.o become "like a single > ThinLTO object" after they get merged. > > > > I see… > > However, do you think by doi...

...a.o b.o c.o >> >> >> >> If I understood you correctly, while doing ThinLTO on a.o, we could >> import from b.o and c.o (this is possible since the summaries are >> available), while we won’t see a.o when doing FullLTO for b.o/c.o. (i.e., >> the previous non-permeable barrier between ThinLTO and FullLTO groups will >> become permeable in one direction). >> > > It could be permeable in both direction: b.o+c.o become "like a single > ThinLTO object" after they get merged. > Yes in fact right now (at least in the new LTO API, but...

...a.o b.o c.o >> >> >> >> If I understood you correctly, while doing ThinLTO on a.o, we could >> import from b.o and c.o (this is possible since the summaries are >> available), while we won’t see a.o when doing FullLTO for b.o/c.o. (i.e., >> the previous non-permeable barrier between ThinLTO and FullLTO groups will >> become permeable in one direction). >> >> >> >> It could be permeable in both direction: b.o+c.o become "like a single >> ThinLTO object" after they get merged. >> >> >> >> I see...

...e LTO group and the ThinLTO >> objects >> $ clang a.o b.o c.o If I understood you correctly, while doing ThinLTO on a.o, we could import from b.o and c.o (this is possible since the summaries are available), while we won’t see a.o when doing FullLTO for b.o/c.o. (i.e., the previous non-permeable barrier between ThinLTO and FullLTO groups will become permeable in one direction). It could be permeable in both direction: b.o+c.o become "like a single ThinLTO object" after they get merged. Yes in fact right now (at least in the new LTO API, but certainly similar in the old one) the...

Que tal Miguel.Bueno, este es un buen intento para los programas que manejan el denominado "Flujo de conocimiento", que lo que tratan es de ordenar los pasos que intervienen en un proceso (proceso=análisis, reporte, etc.) y la ayuda que brindan los softwares, es que los objetos ya definidos para las distintas tareas.Hay algunos de estos programas: Enterprice guide y miner de SAS,

Dear R Listers- I am attempting to analyse the survival of seeds in cages (exclosures) that differ in their permeability to rainforest mammals. Because I did not observe the moment of seed disappearance, my data is interval censored. This limits my options for analysis (as I understand it) to survreg, in the survival package. Because I repeated the experiment in 8 sites, I have a random

Hi, It is non trivial to recompute summaries (which is why we have summaries in the bitcode in the first place by the way), because bitcode is expensive to load. I think shipping two different variant of the bitcode, one with and one without summaries isn't providing much benefit while complicating the flow. We could achieve what you're looking for by revisiting the flow a little. I

..., adding > > > > "The opposite is not true: a prior RELEASE is not > > guaranteed to be visible before memory accesses following > > the subsequent ACQUIRE". > > That kinds of violates the RELEASE? > > " > This also acts as a one-way permeable barrier. It guarantees that all > memory operations before the RELEASE operation will appear to happen > before the RELEASE operation with respect to the other components of the > " yes but we are talking about RELEASE itself versus stuff that comes after it. > > &...

...9;m right, > maybe we should call this out, adding > > "The opposite is not true: a prior RELEASE is not > guaranteed to be visible before memory accesses following > the subsequent ACQUIRE". That kinds of violates the RELEASE? " This also acts as a one-way permeable barrier. It guarantees that all memory operations before the RELEASE operation will appear to happen before the RELEASE operation with respect to the other components of the " > > > >> +} >> + >> +static void inline vhost_vq_access_map_end(struct vhost_vi...

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:46:53AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote: > We used to use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker. This leads > calling synchronize_rcu() in invalidate_range_start(). But on a busy > system, there would be many factors that may slow down the > synchronize_rcu() which makes it unsuitable to be called in MMU > notifier. > > A solution is SRCU but its

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:46:53AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote: > We used to use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker. This leads > calling synchronize_rcu() in invalidate_range_start(). But on a busy > system, there would be many factors that may slow down the > synchronize_rcu() which makes it unsuitable to be called in MMU > notifier. > > A solution is SRCU but its

Hi David, Thank you so much for your reply! >> You're dealing with a situation where you are shipped BC files offline and then do one, or multiple builds with these BC files? Yes, that’s exactly the case. >> If the scenario was more like a naive build: Multiple BC files generated on a single (multi-core/threaded) machine (but some Thin, some >> Full) & then fed to the