Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "ssrr".
Did you mean:
serr
2012 Dec 26
2
Problem with large/small numbers in knitr
I have problems with very large numbers using knitr. In the following, my a
and b are extremely small and ssrr and ssru are extremely large. Knitr
delivers error messages. Scaling ssrr and ssru by 1000 resolved the problem:
ssrr <-ssrr/1000 ; ssru<-ssru/1000
Any clue as to how I might resolve the problem?
BTW, the same program does run in another computer. I am wondering whether
my installation of Sc...
2013 Dec 05
3
[LLVMdev] X86 - Help on fixing a poor code generation bug
...X86ISD::INSERTPS depending on the target's SSE feature level.
To start I checked if this bug was caused simply by the lack of
specific tablegen patterns to match the complex sequence described
above into a single ADDSS instruction.
However X86InstrSSE.td already defines an instruction X86::ADDSSrr as
a commutative SSE scalar fp add instruction (that works on F32
ValueTypes). Instruction X86::ADDSSrr is used to select 'fadd' nodes
and it will be translated to 'addss' in assembly.
At this stage, the MOVSS/INSERTPS is still required since the ADDSS
alone would not be equivalent...
2013 Jan 28
1
Setting inline hook to a function identical to default in knitr turns of exponential formatting
...obtained by
knit_hooks$get("inline")
into a knit_hook$set(inline = <...>) call turns off exponential
fomatting in the resulting .tex file.
I used a stripped version of 'xiaodao's example:
\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
<<>>=
a<-1e-13
b<-2.5e-10
ssrr<-123456.12
ssru<-123400.00
@
$
c=\Sexpr{a}/\Sexpr{b}
f=\Sexpr{ssrr-ssru}/\Sexpr{ssru}
$
\end{document}
so:
knit_hooks$restore()
knit_hooks$get("inline")
## yields:
## function (x)
## {
## if (is.numeric(x))
## x = round(x, getOption("digits"))
## paste(as....
2013 Dec 05
0
[LLVMdev] X86 - Help on fixing a poor code generation bug
...the target's SSE feature level.
>
> To start I checked if this bug was caused simply by the lack of
> specific tablegen patterns to match the complex sequence described
> above into a single ADDSS instruction.
>
> However X86InstrSSE.td already defines an instruction X86::ADDSSrr as
> a commutative SSE scalar fp add instruction (that works on F32
> ValueTypes). Instruction X86::ADDSSrr is used to select 'fadd' nodes
> and it will be translated to 'addss' in assembly.
>
> At this stage, the MOVSS/INSERTPS is still required since the ADDSS
>...
2009 Feb 10
0
[LLVMdev] Multiclass patterns
...have above.
let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in {
multiclass basic_sse1_fp_binop_rm<bits<8> opc, string OpcodeStr,
SDNode OpNode, Intrinsic F32Int,
bit Commutable = 0> {
// Scalar operation, reg+reg.
def SSrr : SSI<opc, MRMSrcReg, (outs FR32:$dst), (ins FR32:$src1, FR32:$src2),
!strconcat(OpcodeStr, "ss\t{$src2, $dst|$dst, $src2}"),
[(set FR32:$dst, (OpNode FR32:$src1, FR32:$src2))]> {
let isCommutable = Commutable;
}
// Scalar operation, reg+me...
2009 Feb 10
2
[LLVMdev] Multiclass patterns
Bill,
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't referring to multiclass's that
define other classes, but with using patterns inside of a multiclass to
reduce redundant code.
For example:
multiclass IntSubtract<SDNode node>
{
def _i8 : Pat<(sub GPRI8:$src0, GPRI8:$src1),
(ADD_i8 GPRI8:$src0, (NEGATE_i8 GPRI8:$src1))>;
def _i32 : Pat<(sub
2009 Apr 30
6
[LLVMdev] RFC: AVX Pattern Specification [LONG]
...For example:
let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in {
multiclass basic_sse1_fp_binop_rm<bits<8> opc, string OpcodeStr,
SDNode OpNode, Intrinsic F32Int,
bit Commutable = 0> {
// Scalar operation, reg+reg.
def SSrr : SSI<opc, MRMSrcReg, (outs FR32:$dst),
(ins FR32:$src1, FR32:$src2),
!strconcat(OpcodeStr, "ss\t{$src2, $dst|$dst, $src2}"),
[(set FR32:$dst, (OpNode FR32:$src1, FR32:$src2))]> {
let isCommutable = Commutable;...
2005 Oct 25
6
ipf stopped working on 5.3
I've had ipf working on a few 5.3 servers for quite awhile. Not too long ago
some developers had to do some coding work and were coming from dynamic
IP's. I (reluctantly) opened up SSH to the world. Immediately I started
seeing the attacks where bots of some sort would try to break in with a
variety of different users.
So, I (thought) I closed it up again and told the developers to use a
2005 Aug 21
1
Security warning with sshd
In my recent security email, I got the following errors:
cantona.dnswatchdog.com login failures:
Aug 20 02:37:19 cantona sshd[9444]: fatal: Write failed: Operation not permitted
Aug 20 04:30:42 cantona sshd[16142]: fatal: Write failed: Operation
not permitted
Aug 20 21:21:51 cantona sshd[45716]: fatal: Write failed: Operation
not permitted
So three questions: What is it? Should I be worried?