search for: phasing

Hello LLVM Dev and Clang Dev! David Dean and I just finished bringing up a new build master on lab.llvm.org, llvmlab, which is located at the url http://lab.llvm.org:8013 and is in #llvm under the username llvmlab. llvmlab is different than the current buildbot based continuous integration systems llvm uses; llvmlab is a phased builder based system. The high level details of the phased builder

Most of the selections, like "console" for example, do not work when I click on them. On 03/27/2013 03:57 PM, Michael Gottesman wrote: > Hello LLVM Dev and Clang Dev! > > David Dean and I just finished bringing up a new build master on > lab.llvm.org <http://lab.llvm.org/>, llvmlab, which is located at the > url http://lab.llvm.org:8013

Do you have anything detailing what the goal of each phase in Xenrt is? Phases 4 and 5 seem to be pretty much identical. Thanks, Paul Larson _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

I encountered something a little strange today. Previously I had enabled samba logging and forgot to disable it. Unsurprisingly my /var partition maxed out. To correct this, I disabled the logging and deleted the (approx 240 MB) samba log file. Strangely I still had a full /var partition. Running df gave me: SRV04# df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad4s1a

Hello, I am trying to filter a data set like below so that the peaks in the Phase value are more obvious and can be identified by a peak finding function following the useful advise of Carl Witthoft. I have written the following for(i in length(data$Phase)){ newphase=if(abs(data$Phase[i+1]-data$Phase[i])>6){ data$Phase[i+1] }else{data$Phase[i] } } I get the following error which I have not

Dear Arjen, Arnaud et al, I've just organized an MGE UPS with Ref. 66074 SNMP/Web Transverse Card for testing purposes. Months ago I found a quite simple bug in the UPS-MIB implementation of this card and Schneider Electric guys seemed not to have intention and/or knowledge to fix it. Now local representative sent me an MGE "Pulsar Extreme 2000 VA" model in order to find an

Richard Lee wrote: > But there is a caveat. Does Vorbis coupling preserve "phase" relations? Any references explaining this in simple detail? Sebastian : >"coupling" is a rather loose term in the sense that it doesn't exactly specify HOW it's done. It can be understood as the opposite of coding channels independently. Obviously there are many ways to do

Hi, Are there any functions in R that could be used to estimate the phase-shift between two semi-sinusoidal vectors? Here is what I have tried so far, using the spectrum() function -- possibly incorrectly: # generate some fake data, normalized to unit circle x <- jitter(seq(-2*pi, 2*pi, by=0.1), amount=pi/8) # functions defining two out-of-phase phenomena f1 <- function(x)

Dear WizaRds, I am struggling with the use of twophase in package survey. My goal is to compute a simple example in two phase sampling: phase 1: I sample n1=1000 circuit boards and find 80 non functional phase 2: Given the n1=1000 sample I sample n2=100 and find 15 non functional. Let's say, phase 2 shows this result together with phase 1: ...................phase1........

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Michael Gottesman <mgottesman at apple.com>wrote: > 3. Later phases do broader, longer lasting testing than earlier phases. > Thus the 4 phases we currently have are: > > a. Phase 1 (sanity): Phase 1 is a quick non-bootstrapped, non-lto > compiler build, to check the ``basic sanity'' of the code base and build > process.

From: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:53 PM To: Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> Cc: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>; Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization

I'm using nls to fit periodic gene-expression data to sine waves. I need to set the upper and lower boundaries, because I do not want any negative phase and amplitude solutions. This means that I have to use the "port" algorithm. The problem is, that depending on what start value I choose for phase, the fit works for some cases, but not for others. In the example below, the fit works

Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 11:20, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > > > > > *From:* Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:53 PM > *To:* Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> > *Cc:* David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>; Teresa Johnson < > tejohnson at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

Hello everyone, Please let me know if you'd like to help providing binaries and testing for your favourite platform. If you were a tester on the previous release, I've bcc'd you on this email. I propose this schedule for the 3.7 release: - 14 July 2015: Create the release branch. - 14 July -- 21 July: Testing Phase I. RC1 binaries are built and tested. - 22 July -- 29 July: Fix

*I would like to plot some semi-periodic signals as a function of the phase expressed as a value in [0,2PI]* *The problem is that the phase data is reported as the residual of the division by 2PI.* *For instance if the phase is 10.359 rd then:* *15.359 / 6.283185 = 2*6.283185 + 2.79263* *then only the residual 2.79263 is stored. * *In order to plot a number of consecutive cycles I have to add

I found this sentence in the Ogg format specs: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/doc/vorbis-spec-res.html "A residue vector may represent spectral lines, spectral magnitude, spectral phase or hybrids as mixed by channel coupling." But where does the spectral phase information come from ? AFAIK MDCT doesn't provide any phase information. And in OGG-encoding, MDCT is taking place a few

On 19 Jul 2015, at 17:32, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: > > On 19 Jul 2015, at 01:44, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: > ... >> Hm, strangely enough, this version of the script does not go further than the Phase 2 installation, and does not run any tests? This used to work fine for the release_36 branch. >> >> I think it is

See attached some quick slides (backup from the dev meeting talk) about the pass pipeline. -- Mehdi Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 12:18, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> a écrit : > > > Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 11:20, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> >> *Sent:*

Hi all, This is a design change proposal to make lld's symbol resolution phase mostly-concurrent without changing the existing semantics. The aim of this change is to speed up the linker on multi-core machines. *Background:* Even though many parts of lld are multi-threaded, the symbol resolution phase is single-threaded. In the symbol resolution phase, the linker does the following: - Read

Hi, ?I am working with the following list of files: [1] "study_chr1.one.phased.impute2.chunk1"?????????????? [2] "study_chr1.one.phased.impute2.chunk1_info"????????? [3] "study_chr1.one.phased.impute2.chunk1_info_by_sample" [4] "study_chr1.one.phased.impute2.chunk1_summary"?????? [5] "study_chr1.one.phased.impute2.chunk1_warnings"?????? The