search for: tractably

Hi Petr, The following is different line of thought which is posted in different form, maybe you have some wise input on it. "I need to find Efficient(tracktable) deterministic algorithm for Matching Weighted Graphs with bounded degree. Now we all know Graph matching is non-tractable but when degree of vertex has upper bound are there any tractable algorithm? Does this special case comes

Deae R helpers, the problem I'm facing today is related to the manipulation of a string. The string is coming from a a porosimeter, whose control is under a complicate set-up of two computers One (running on DOS) is controlling directly the hardware, while the other (running on win XP) which process the data is connected to the first one via serial. I get the data from this last computer.

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 09:49:24AM -0700, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev wrote: > An optional MPFR dependency would also be pretty painful. I expect it will > frequently be missing and will not be exercised by most buildbots. IMO if constant folding of transcendental functions makes a significant difference for your program, you likely are doing something strange already. I don't think it

Hi all. I’ve heard a couple of times that some of the problems solved by various passes in the optimizer are indeed NP-hard, even though the instances are small enough to be tractable (and very quickly). Is this true? If so, which are these problems? Register allocation? Instruction scheduling? Are they solved exactly or by approximations? Or not solved at all (the need of solving them is

Thanks for looking at this Tim. On a pandaboard, at least with the Release+Asserts config I tried, those tests do complain on stderr but llvm-lit thinks they've passed/expected fails, they don't actually count as fails like they do on the buildbot. Regarding solving PR16013 that looks like a relatively tractable job (on both 32-bit arm and aarch64) IF you're already familiar with the

Allow compile time creation of a hole at the high end of linear address space. This makes accomodating a hypervisor a much more tractable problem by giving it ample playground to live in. Currently, the hole size is fixed at config time; I have experimented with dynamically sized holes, and have a later patch that developes this potential, but it becomes much more useful once the exact

If I have two factors A and B with levels '1','2','3' and '1','4','6','8' recpectively (note the gaps in the second one). As factors, the levels are named as above while of course the internal codes are (1,2,3) and (1,2,3,4) respectively. I want to make a design matrix of these as one would in a linear model except I can't use lm or glm

I have a pdf scan of several pages of data from a quite famous old paper by C.S. Pierce (1873). I would like (what else?) to convert it into an R dataframe. Somewhat to my surprise the pdf seems to already be in a character recognized form, since I can search for numerical strings and they are nicely found. Of course, as is usual with such tables there are also headings and column

Hi there I am new to R and would like to ask some questions which might not make perfect sense. Anyhow, here they are: 1) I would like very much to use R for processing some big data files (around 1.7 or more GB) for spatial analysis, wavelets, and power spectra estimation; is this possible with R? Within IDL, such a big data set seems to be tractable... 2) I have heard/read that R

Is there a good reason why known_hosts stores the address of the server but not the port? This is annoying when one host is running more than one instance of openssh with different ports and different keys, or (less tractably) when a NAT in front of multiple hosts multiplexes which host is connected to by port number. I see no immediate security implication in fixing this, but am I missing something? -- Alex Bligh

Allow compile time creation of a hole at the high end of linear address space. This makes accomodating a hypervisor a much more tractable problem by giving it ample playground to live in. Currently, the hole size is fixed at config time; I have experimented with dynamically sized holes, and have a later patch that developes this potential, but it becomes much more useful once the exact

On Aug 14, 2007, at 00:23, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> Changing these structures breaks binary compatibility (including C >> interop). > > If that is so, and if there is no way around this, then it makes > sense to develop some compatibility mode. How does native C code > generate these tables? I might've

On Aug 14, 2007, at 06:24, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > The two major problems I had really boil down to identifying GC > points in machine code and statically identifying live roots at > those GC points, both problems common to many collection > techniques. Looking at the problem from that perspective makes the > problem much more tractable, actually… Chris, This is much

Sorry I meant 0xE8, 0xFF was in my head because of disassembling and seeing it in use, my bad. Ok I didn't thought about PIC, that's a good idea ! ... I forgot it existed at the wrong moment I guess ... How can I modify the GOT then ? Is there an api somewhere in the execution engine / MCJIT ? Or is it somewhere else ? Or I need to accept the idea of hacking stuff inside the LLVM code

Hi, Is it possible to tell LLVM somewhere that we prefer the asm printer to use x64 relative CALL (0xFF) instead of absolute one ? The goal is to be able to move the entire JIT program memory somewhere else and still be able to run the program. Thanks ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: >>  * I don't think CMake is good enough. I agree it solves problems, but >> I want to use great tools, not ones that work. In particular: >>    (c) This doesn't solve any other nice problems:

> Both A9 bots are running the same Ubuntu (13.03), with the same GCC (4.7.2), > and are the same hardware (Panda ES RevB), so it really strikes me as odd > that we have such a different behaviour between them. Hmm. I'll see what I can do on my tablet (not tried building LLVM there before so it could take a while), it seems like there are *some* failures everywhere. If we're

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: >  * I don't think CMake is good enough. I agree it solves problems, but > I want to use great tools, not ones that work. In particular: >    (c) This doesn't solve any other nice problems: >          (i) It doesn't make it easier to play with other build > systems (like Ninja, or gyp).

I have a list of entrants (1-14 in this example) in a competitive event and corresponding win probabilities for each entrant. [(1, 0.049), (2, 0.129), (3, 0.043), (4, 0.013), (5, 0.015), (6, 0.040), (7, 0.066), (8, 0.038), (9, 0.204), (10, 0.022), (11, 0.234), (12, 0.044), (13, 0.068), (14, 0.035)] So, of course Sum(ps) = 1. In order to make some subsequent computations more

Hi Lang, That would be great ! :) For now I found a hack which consist of loading a "full of NOP" DLL, use my own DllMemMgr which allocates JIT sections inside the DLL virtual space, backup the memory inside some buffers, unload the DLL, copy the buffer inside the DLL file, create the PDB, reload the DLL file which hopefully in 99% is reloaded at the same virtual address (this allow me