search for: provenant

Dear R users, I 'm working on a dataset consisting of 4 different dataframes with tree, leaf, fruit and seed measurements made on 300 trees, coming from 10 provenances (30 trees per provenance, 10 leaves/fruits/seeds per tree). Provenances are fixed effects (they were not randomly chosen), but trees within provenances and leaves/fruits/seeds within trees were randomly assigned. I wanted to

Dear R-group, I am trying desperately to get this Tukey test working. Its my first time here so I hope my question is not too stupid, but I couldn't find anything helpful in the help or in the forum. I am analysing a dataset of treated grasses. I want to find out, if the grasses from different Provenances react differently. In the aov test I found a significance for the combination Treatment

Hi Johannes et al, > -----Original Message----- > From: Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> [..] > On 11/06, Jeroen Dobbelaere wrote: > > >From: Alexey Zhikhartsev > > [..] > > > We would love to see your patches merged as soon as possible, so I was > wondering: do you think the lack of bitcode support will prevent that from > happening? >

Hi Alexey, >From: Alexey Zhikhartsev [..] > We would love to see your patches merged as soon as possible, so I was wondering: do you think the lack of bitcode support will prevent that from happening? Yes, I think that the lack of bitcode support will prevent it. During the Developers meeting, I also talked with Hal and Johannes. They had some extra remarks: - (1) the restrict

Hi, everyone, We've had a number of discussions recently, including on the Flang technical call, about potential improvements to LLVM's alias analysis to support handling restrict and restrict-like semantics. We would like to try having a call to discuss these issues further. Please, if you're interested in joining, indicate your availability (prior to the end of this week):

On 01/28/2013 06:51 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > Is this sufficient to implement #pragma ivdep in clang? I'm not completely sure of this: "Note: The proven dependencies that prevent vectorization are not ignored, only assumed dependencies are ignored."

To join our call on Thursday, May 28th @ 9-10 AM central time / 2-3 PM UTC please use this information: Meeting URL https://bluejeans.com/643493129?src=join_info Meeting ID 643 493 129 Want to dial in from a phone? Dial one of the following numbers: +1.312.216.0325 (US (Chicago)) +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) +1.866.226.4650 (US Toll Free) (see all numbers -

Great, thanks! Are you planning on just talking about these things with slides? Do we have other things to which we can link for people to read? -Hal Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory ________________________________ From: Tarique Islam <tislam at ca.ibm.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:19:31 AM To:

hi all i''m trying to pass a variable name right round the block and need a hand to ease my aching brain. ##in my sidebar i have <li><%= SidebarItem(''catalogue'') %></li> <li><%= SidebarItem(''provenance'') %></li> <li><%= SidebarItem(''status'') %></li> ##linked to a

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> > To: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 10:45:36 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] parallel loop awareness to the LoopVectorizer > > Hi Pekka,

About these disclaimers associated with ivdep and such... You guys are overthinking it. They're just saying you cannot force the compiler to vectorize or parallelize a loop that it knows (can prove!) is not a parallel loop. They are not obliging the compiler to do dependence analysis or alias analysis or anything. For example len = 0; while (A[i]) { i++; len++; } Assert all you want;

For those who come across this thread, I've found the exact list of changed and dropped package between rhel:7 and rhel:8: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/html-single/considerations_in_adopting_rhel_8/index#package-replacements_changes-to-packages Too bad that the "note" column is empty in the dropped package table. NO word about reason or

Hi, everyone, We had a great call last month, and progress is definitely being made on several fronts. The notes from our last call are available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ybwEKDVtIbhIhK50qYtwKsL50K-NvB6LfuBsfepBZ9Y/edit#heading=h.vpxs8lkuxy79 and, also, pasted below. DOODLE POLL: As we discussed on our last call, I would like to schedule a regular call to discuss

Gene Cumm wrote:- >TC64 still has ISOLINUX. The basics are to use chain.c32 to boot >USB-B:p3 but syntax depends. Ideally, it's a modern enough Syslinux >version that you can use the "guid" or "label" options to auto-detect >its location rather than "chain.c32 hdN M". Hopefully your FS >label/GUID is unique sdb3 Boot Primary

Hi all, I am trying to identify when a write to memory (store) is safe or not (based on LLVM IR). I refer "safe" to spatial safety (no out of bounds write) and not temporal safety (no double free() etc). My current approach would be to declare every pointer as unsafe that is computed somewhere by a GEP instruction with non constant indices, as well as constant indices that can be

Dear all, I've been reading for many days trying to predict with lmer but I haven't managed to do it. I've fitted an allometric model for trees where I have included climatic variables and diameter in the fixed part and in the random part I've included the experimental sites where trees are and also their provenance region. The model is like this :

Hi all: I'm testing a new installation of *, bringing up some ATA186. In * environment, all stuff works greats. The only thing that don't work is a Call Transfer, but the 3Party works ok. Some time ago I read that somebody had proven this functionality successfully. If somebody knows what I missing, please let me know. Thanks in advance, Gus -------------- next part -------------- An

Peter, similar to the OpenSSL test and "with_ssl", can we make the libusb test in configure.in depend on "with_usb=yes"? It's not as important as not linking against OpenSSL unless requested, but it caused a bit of confusion when I was trying to rebuild. I forgot that "--with-drivers=all" does not imply "--with-usb", and it was not registering that the

Upstream commit 4370eec05a88 "arm64: Expand arm64 image header" ended up changing the zImage magic (which was actually the initial branch instructio encoding!). The new header has a proper magic number at a fixed location. Switch Xen itself to using this format. Neither the bootwrapper nor the models care about this header themselves and real bootloaders are not widely used, so now is

Hey Timo, Just curious if you ever thought about supporting other than just OpenSSL? PolarSSL looks really interesting, has no major dependencies and is very lightweight compared to OpenSSL, GNUTLS or others... https://polarssl.org/ I guess it could be a lot of work, or not, anyway, I'm just curious... -- Best regards, */Charles/*