search for: savery

...dec=".",header=TRUE) require(gmm) Returns <- DataMat[1:6480,"Returns"] VWRET <- DataMat[1:6480,"VWRET"] RF <- DataMat[1:6480,"RF"] z<-as.matrix(Returns-RF) zm<-as.matrix(VWRET-RF) res <- gmm(z ~ zm, x = zm) coef(res) -- Sherlene Enriquez-Savery, Doctoral Candidate Department of Mathematics & Statistics University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue Tampa,FL, 33620 (813) 974-5439 (813) 974 6126 Fax ssenriqu@usf.edu ssenriqu@mail.usf.edu [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi I''m very keen to learn RoR and have been following the Agile Web Development with Rails book (first edition). However, I''ve come across a problem which has had me stumped for days now. After following the instructions up to page 85 I have tried testing the code thus far, as suggested, by adding an item to the cart. But I am getting the following error: --

Chris Lattner wrote: > This is probably a difference between the sun and GNU assemblers. > There is no current sparc maintainer, so feel free to change it if one > way works better for you. Hi Chris, Here's the fix: Index: SparcRegisterInfo.cpp =================================================================== --- SparcRegisterInfo.cpp (revision 700) +++

On Jul 31, 2008, at 9:57 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Jul 31, 2008, at 4:52 AMPDT, Richard Pennington wrote: > >> Any code that I generate for the Sparc fails at assembly time using a >> gas assembler built for the Sparc. >> >> I get code like the following from the code generator: >> >> save -96, %o6, %o6 >> >> and get a syntax

On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > So inverting it so that MI contains LLVM IR instead of the other way > around? Then we'd need a serialization format for MI that happened to > include a way of serializing LLVM IR within. From a quick "hey, this > seems reasonable" the idea of embedding the MI into the IR rather than

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > Can you suggest an alternative solution? Can you describe why you don't > think metadata is the right container? This alone isn't really helpful at > moving us toward something that there has been