search for: reevalu

...rvival objects from Splus 3.4 on Solaris 7 to R 0.63.3 on Intel. The only trick is that survival objects contain an element holding the original call that generated the object. When Splus writes these out, it doesn't mark them in any way, so when R tries to read them in, it ends up trying to reevaluate the call. Not nice. Anyway, as all but one** of the offending calls occur in statements that look like [...], call = func( param1, param2, [..] ), class = "myclass" so I wrote the following perl script to encapsulate each call in as.call(expression(...)) : -------begin transl...

...rvival objects from Splus 3.4 on Solaris 7 to R 0.63.3 on Intel. The only trick is that survival objects contain an element holding the original call that generated the object. When Splus writes these out, it doesn't mark them in any way, so when R tries to read them in, it ends up trying to reevaluate the call. Not nice. Anyway, as all but one** of the offending calls occur in statements that look like [...], call = func( param1, param2, [..] ), class = "myclass" so I wrote the following perl script to encapsulate each call in as.call(expression(...)) : -------begin transl...

...on in this thread my proposal is this: - LLVM 3.3 (~April/May 2013) has no C++'11 in it. - Limited C++'11 language features becomes ok after the 3.3 release branches. - We limit ourselves to the intersection of features supported by MSVC 2010, GCC 4.5, and Clang 3.1. - Down the road we can reevaluate and bump up the minimums when it makes sense. Does that seem reasonable - or at least acceptable - for everyone? -Chris

Dear R-helpers, How come that in the following code the rnorm() function is evaluated only once for each branch of the 'ifelse' ? x <- rnorm(10) y1 <- ifelse(x > 0, rnorm(1) , rnorm(1)) What is the right way to make it called/evaluated for each row, apart from a 'for' loop ? Thanks, Jacques.

...a way to "flush" specific cache once it is created? (other then erasing the entire cache directory)? Changing the code in the code chunk seems to do it, but I am not sure to what extent. For example - if I add at the end of the code chunk a number (say 1 - that will be printed), it will reevaluate the code chunk. However, if I remove that number, it will not re-evaluate the code chunk. 3) To what extent does cacheSweave rely on Sweave? For example: I see that the latest Sweave document is from October 31, 2011 while the latest update to cacheSweave is from 2011-07-23. Does that mean tha...

...ly > exits, and I’m pretty certain that will never change. Why? A decision was made to give pointers types, and we've decided to change that. It is not clear to me that the decision to allow implicit early exits was, in retrospect, optimal. I think it is completely healthy for the project to reevaluate these kinds of decisions. We now have many years of experience, bug reports, and we should have a good ability to evaluate the compile-time impact of a potential change. -Hal > - LLVM made the decision/tradeoff not to maintain a postdom tree > throughout most of the pass pipeline >...

...then I would like to get the values 3, 2, 2, 4 out. I can do this with: tmp <- model.matrix(fit, data=mydata) or tmp <- predict(fit, newdata=mydata, type="terms") However, if the fit had a smoothing spline component, this fails. It seems like the prediction function is trying to reevaluate the basis for the spline, and as there is only one row in the new data, it can't do that. Is there a way I can get the value of the already-created spline? And is there a simple way to do this programmatically so I don't need to check each term of the formula individually? Cheers, Dav...

...we could do in the future. > > > > [NOTE: I CC'ed some people that have shown interest in this topic but I > > might have forgotten some, therefor I also added the llvm-dev list.] > > > > For the upcoming GSoC proposal we should slow down a little bit and > > reevaluate our goals. After talking to a couple of LLVM and Polly folks > > at EuroLLVM last week, I hope to have a fairly good idea of how to > > proceed. To this end, I will give you my personal road map that might be > > a good start for the proposal too, though it is not the only way...

...e nice process here and have some very good ideas of what we could do in the future. [NOTE: I CC'ed some people that have shown interest in this topic but I might have forgotten some, therefor I also added the llvm-dev list.] For the upcoming GSoC proposal we should slow down a little bit and reevaluate our goals. After talking to a couple of LLVM and Polly folks at EuroLLVM last week, I hope to have a fairly good idea of how to proceed. To this end, I will give you my personal road map that might be a good start for the proposal too, though it is not the only way we could do this: 1) Make S...

...ar as I understand the docs, is a pretty powerful part of LLVM). The optimizations that I need to get to work are: * Tail call elimination. * Constant evaluation. To implement this, the JIT phase would have to evaluate the constant and somehow store it so that future runs don't need to reevaluate it. * Dead code elimination, enabled by constant evaluation. * Monomorphisation, i.e. constant evaluation may establish that some data structures aren't polymorphic, so it would be worth generating code that keeps integers in registers instead of generating boxed representations on...

Hello LLVM, This is a proposal for a new pass that improves performance and code size in some nested loop situations. The pass is target independent. >From the description in the file header: This optimization finds loop exit values reevaluated after the loop execution and replaces them by the corresponding exit values if they are available. Such sequences can arise after the SimplifyIndVals+LoopStrengthReduce passes. This pass should be run after LoopStrengthReduce. A former colleague created this pass back in LLVM 2.9 and we've...

...} I hope that we don't need to do something like this, but I've been disappointed by C/POSIX semantics before. On the other hand, we might want to break these into groups anyway, and allocate a local stack buffer to hold the mask computed from the condition, so that we don't have to reevaluate the condition in the loop. Also, I'm certainly open to other ways to do this. Are there any other ways? Thoughts? Thanks again, Hal -- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory

...mit. There will be a 1.2.1 release in a couple of months. There may be further stable releases if enough fixes can be still be cherry-picked cleanly to make it worth it. Bugs that are currently on the 1.2 milestone should not be automatically carried forward to the 1.4 milestone. We'll want to reevaluate which bugs are really important for 1.4, based on the release criteria once these are defined. But of course fixing the remaining 1.2-nominated bugs is still allowed... -- Alexandre Julliard julliard at winehq.org

...el <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > Why? A decision was made to give pointers types, and we've decided to > change that. It is not clear to me that the decision to allow implicit > early exits was, in retrospect, optimal. I think it is completely healthy > for the project to reevaluate these kinds of decisions. We now have many > years of experience, bug reports, and we should have a good ability to > evaluate the compile-time impact of a potential change. > > > Let me rephrase: It didn’t seem to me like the fundamental problem we were > up against in this di...

...on that I want to present for a new Samba solution to use OpenLDAP as our place to manage users. We also have everyting (services, workplaces and servers) make use of our ldap service. > We want to use Samba AD mainly for the AD and GPO. > > I hope this is somehow a solution else I need to reevaluate the project. > > Kind regards, > Paul Reemeijer > > > So you want to manage your users in ldap and use AD, or to put it another way, your want to have your users in ldap and in AD,. I think you may be missing the point here, the whole idea behind AD is centralisation, all yo...

...6_64-apple-darwin9.8.0) The problem DOES NOT occur under R 2.10.0 on Win32. If the code below is bracketed with pdf("test.pdf") and dev.off(), the correct labels appear in the file. This behavior doesn't seem to appear if there is only one plot. My guess is that the titles are being reevaluated when the plot is redrawn, and since the value of i is 2 when the redraw occurs, both labels get set to "i=2". I guess "Save as" forces a redraw because a dialog box pops up? If could be that this behavior is what is intended, and that somewhere between R 2.10.0 and R 2.13...

Hello all, due to unexplained differences between statistical results from collaborators and our lab that arose in the same large proteomics dataset we reevaluated the t.test() function. Here, we found a weird behaviour that is also reproducible in the following small test dataset: Suppose, we have two vectors with numbers and some missing values that refer to the same individuals and that should therefore be evaluated with a paired t-test: > te...

Suppose I have a single ZFS pool on a single disk; I want to upgrade the system to use two different, larger disks and I want to mirror. Can I do something like: - I start with disk #0 - add mirror on disk #1 (resilver) - replace first disk (#0) with disk #2 (resilver) Casper

...ifference. LLVM, OTOH, does a large amount of IPO and IPA, such as dead argument elimination, IPSCCP, and other things. Something that is good to inline for GCC is not necessarily good for LLVM. 3. Once these annotations are added to a source base, they are almost never removed or reevaluated. This exacerbates #2. In my mind, the right solution to this problem is to use profile-directed inlining. If you actually care this much about the performance of your code, you should be willing to use profile information. Profile information will help inlining, but it can also be used f...

I found this tracing a bug when experimenting with a new sort() function using match.arg(). It was triggered because mosaicplot.default(.) has an argument called `sort' and calls itself the sort() function in which I was using match.arg()... Here is (input for) a small clean example : #### bad match.arg() // sys.function() bug : #### MM, 22.3.2002 callme <- function(a = 1, mm =