search for: reg5

...his after isel: (Reg0 and Reg1 are 16bit registers. Reg2, Reg3 and Reg4 are 32 bit registers with 16bit subregs, hi16 and lo16.) Reg0 = #imm0 Reg1 = #imm1 Reg2 = IMPLICIT_DEF Reg3 = INSERT_SUBREG Reg2, Reg0, hi16 Reg4 = INSERT_SUBREG Reg3, Reg1, lo16 After TwoAddressInstructionPass it becomes: Reg5:hi16<def,read-undef> = Reg0 Reg5:lo16<def> = Reg1 So, in my world this means a setting of the high 16 bits in Reg5 (not affecting the low part) followed by a setting of the low 16 bits (not affecting the high part). Is this how LLVM looks at it too? (What does the "rea...

...ML<-grip$BML grip$MCF->MCF reg1<-lm(BML~MCF,data=subset(grip,morph=="mel"));reg1 reg2<-lm(BML~MCF,data=subset(grip,morph=="tham"));reg2 reg3<-lm(BML~MCF,data=subset(grip,morph=="A"));reg3 reg4<-lm(BML~MCF,data=subset(grip,morph=="B"));reg4 reg5<-lm(BML~MCF,data=subset(grip,morph=="C"));reg5 plot(MCF,BML,pch=c(2,6,5,19,15)[grip$morph],xlab="Residual Metacarpal Length",ylab="Residual Hand Strength (Broad Dowel)", main="Males") abline(reg1,lty=1) abline(reg2,lty=2) abline(reg3,lty=3) abline(reg4,l...

...>> expressed so that they do not interfere with each other? See the >> detailed problem description below. > > We do have a limitation in our current liveness tracking for > sub-register. Therefore, I am not sure that is possible. > > Conceptually, what you want is: > Reg5:hi16<def,read-undef> > Reg5:lo16<def,read-undef> > > However, I guess this wouldn’t be supported, because it would mean that > we do not care about the value of hi16 at the definition of Reg5:lo16. > This is true, but after this definition we do care about hi16 and I am &...

...regression (y=a+(b*x)+(c*A)) would have collinearity problems, so I decided to do a partial regression to predict y. I did it this way: - I regressed y to A, and calculated the residuals (e_y) (reg1) - I regressed x to A, and calculated the residuals (e_x) (reg2) - I regressed e_y to e_x (reg5) It looks like this: y = a_0 + a_1 A (reg1) x = b_0 + b_1 A (reg2) e_y = y - (a_0 + a_1 A) (3) e_x = x - (b_0 + b_1 A) (4) e_y = beta_0 + beta_1 e_x (reg5) Then, to predict a y_0 from a new x_0 and A_0, we would: Calculate e_x0 with the equation (4). Calculate e_y0 with the equation (reg5) and the...

Hi everyone! I'm new to R, and I'm stuck on a problem I don't know how to approach. I have calculated a regression in the form of M ~ D + O + S, and I would like to take this regression and test it with other samples, 5 at a time(5 meaning 5 set, each consisting M, D, O, and S of a specific date). I assume I'll need a for loop. Right now, My data of M, D, O, and S are all stored in

...d1: AT_decl_line( 0x0d ( 13 ) ) > 0x000000d2: AT_type( cu + 0x00000066 => {0x00000103} ( ) ) > 0x000000d6: AT_external( 0x01 ) > 0x000000d7: AT_low_pc( 0x0000f780 ) > 0x000000db: AT_high_pc( 0x0000f7b1 ) > 0x000000df: AT_frame_base( <0x1> 55 ( reg5 ) ) > > 0x000000e1: NULL > > 0x000000e2: Compile Unit: length = 0x00000071 version = 0x0002 > abbr_offset = 0x00000000 addr_size = 0x04 (next CU at 0x00000157) > > 0x000000ed: TAG_compile_unit [1] * > 0x000000ee: AT_producer( .debug_str[0x00000001] = "0.1 tartc...

...r.tart" ) ) 0x000000d1: AT_decl_line( 0x0d ( 13 ) ) 0x000000d2: AT_type( cu + 0x00000066 => {0x00000103} ( ) ) 0x000000d6: AT_external( 0x01 ) 0x000000d7: AT_low_pc( 0x0000f780 ) 0x000000db: AT_high_pc( 0x0000f7b1 ) 0x000000df: AT_frame_base( <0x1> 55 ( reg5 ) ) 0x000000e1: NULL 0x000000e2: Compile Unit: length = 0x00000071 version = 0x0002 abbr_offset = 0x00000000 addr_size = 0x04 (next CU at 0x00000157) 0x000000ed: TAG_compile_unit [1] * 0x000000ee: AT_producer( .debug_str[0x00000001] = "0.1 tartc" ) 0x000000f2: AT_language( 0x...

...d1: AT_decl_line( 0x0d ( 13 ) ) > 0x000000d2: AT_type( cu + 0x00000066 => {0x00000103} ( ) ) > 0x000000d6: AT_external( 0x01 ) > 0x000000d7: AT_low_pc( 0x0000f780 ) > 0x000000db: AT_high_pc( 0x0000f7b1 ) > 0x000000df: AT_frame_base( <0x1> 55 ( reg5 ) ) > > 0x000000e1: NULL > > 0x000000e2: Compile Unit: length = 0x00000071 version = 0x0002 abbr_offset = 0x00000000 addr_size = 0x04 (next CU at 0x00000157) > > 0x000000ed: TAG_compile_unit [1] * > 0x000000ee: AT_producer( .debug_str[0x00000001] = "0.1 tartc&q...

On Mar 29, 2011, at 7:29 PM, Talin wrote: > I've been trying to track down the problem with the DWARF info that is being emitted by my front end, which has been broken for about a month now. Here's what happens when I attempt to use gdb to debug one of my programs on OS X: > > gdb stack crawl at point of internal error: > [ 0 ] /usr/libexec/gdb/gdb-i386-apple-darwin

I've been trying to track down the problem with the DWARF info that is being emitted by my front end, which has been broken for about a month now. Here's what happens when I attempt to use gdb to debug one of my programs on OS X: gdb stack crawl at point of internal error: [ 0 ] /usr/libexec/gdb/gdb-i386-apple-darwin (align_down+0x0) [0x122300] [ 1 ] /usr/libexec/gdb/gdb-i386-apple-darwin

Hello everyone, this is the fourth version of the patch series that introduces ARMv7 with virtualization extensions support in Xen. The series allows Xen and Dom0 to boot on a Cortex-A15 based Versatile Express simulator. See the following announce email for more informations about what we are trying to achieve, as well as the original git history: See

Hello everyone, this is the very first version of the patch series that introduces ARMv7 with virtualization extensions support in Xen. The series allows Xen and Dom0 to boot on a Cortex-A15 based Versatile Express simulator. See the following announce email for more informations about what we are trying to achieve, as well as the original git history: See