search for: runty

Graham, Confirmed. I will pass that along to the R team. As 1.8.0 is in code freeze, this may not get addressed, unfortunately. Regards, Dirk On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 03:16:35PM +1000, Graham Williams wrote: > Package: r-base-core > Version: 1.7.1.cvs.20030927-1 > Severity: normal > > > $ R > > R : Copyright 2003, The R Development Core Team > Version 1.8.0 beta

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 08:29:31AM -0500, Douglas Bates wrote: > edd@debian.org writes: > > > Graham, > > > > Confirmed. I will pass that along to the R team. As 1.8.0 is in code freeze, > > this may not get addressed, unfortunately. > > > > Regards, Dirk > > I believe Ross Ihaka has already detected and fixed this problem. The > fix should

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:21:29AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 08:29:31AM -0500, Douglas Bates wrote: > > edd@debian.org writes: > > > > > Graham, > > > > > > Confirmed. I will pass that along to the R team. As 1.8.0 is in code freeze, > > > this may not get addressed, unfortunately. > > > > > >

...o the NT box (albeit at a slightly slower speed). While management doesn't much care about the outcome of this test (they'd want the NT box if it took two days to write ten bytes), I want the best system to win. I just can't believe that a Linux/Samba system is unable to out-perform a runty Windows box. One nagging question is what would the "real" server's performance be? We have spec'd dual Athlon MP 2200+ CPUs, a 3ware 7506-12 controller with 12 200gb Western Digital drives, and 4gb of RAM. (Whole thing is $6,000!!) Thing is, I don't think the RAID would...

I installed GD2 1.0/1.1, but they are both not working, does anyone knows why? Great Thanks! With GD 1.0 I got: ======================================================== RuntimeError unknown symbol "gdImageSquareToCircle" RAILS_ROOT: /home/virtual/site1/fst/var/www/html/imodesite/public/../config/.. Application Trace | Framework Trace | Full Trace

My code was hinky, but only in the sense that I was accidentally duplicating the definition variable in the module where the function was. With only the declaration in the second module loading the bitcode reproduces the issue. Managed an lli reproduction: $ cat jit-0.ll target datalayout = "e-m:x-p:32:32-i64:64-f80:32-n8:16:32-a:0:32-S32" target triple =

That's useful to know that the static compilation code path works. Furthermore, as expected from that: 52: c7 05 04 00 00 00 d5 00 00 00 movl $213, 4 00000054: IMAGE_REL_I386_DIR32 _foo It looks like the offset `4` of the second field of your struct is correct in the object file, so this does seem to be a problem in the JIT-specific linking/loading.