Displaying 20 results from an estimated 34 matches for "uges".
Did you mean:
gues
2015 Oct 19
1
R 3.2.2 - make check and install package hang
Below is the output. Thanks for the help.
> Sys.getenv()
BASH_FUNC_module() () { eval
`/cm/local/apps/environment-modules/3.2.10/Modules/$MODULE_VERSION/bin/modulecmd
bash $*` }
COLUMNS 152
CPATH /cm/shared/apps/uge/8.2.1/include
CVS_RSH ssh
DISPLAY localhost:10.0
EDITOR
2011 Jan 26
1
Compilation errors when installing gee
Hi,
I am trying to install gee on our server but I get the error below. I do not have root on this machine so no control on how R was installed itself. It looks like it cannot find blas libs, the only ones i can find on the machine are:
/usr/lib64/libblas.so.3 -> libblas.so.3.0.3
/usr/lib64/libblas.so.3.0 -> libblas.so.3.0.3
/usr/lib64/libblas.so.3.0.3
and :
$ R CMD config BLAS_LIBS
2012 Jan 12
1
Problems compiling packages from source: can't find -lquadmath.
Hi all,
I have recently installed Debian squeeze on a Dell T7500, but I have
pinned R and friends to come from the unstable distribution. Currently I
have these Debian packages installed (with dependencies):
r-base-core 2.14.1-1
r-base-dev 2.14.1-1
The problem comes when installing new source packages from CRAN using
install.packages(). Below is a typical installation output:
* installing
2015 Oct 17
3
R 3.2.2 - make check and install package hang
Hello Everyone,
After trying several ways to compile R 3.2.2 without luck, I?m reaching out for help.
The ?make check? does not hanges for some reason and when
trying to install a package it cannot list the download sites (see below).
What could be the problem?
./configure --enable-R-shlib --enable-BLAS-shlib
hostname = test
uname -m = x86_64
uname -r = 2.6.32-573.7.1.el6.x86_64
uname -s =
2011 Apr 01
1
[LLVMdev] signed/unsigned integers ?
> there is no such information. You can still consider every type to have values
> in, say, T = [-2^31; 2^31-1]. Probably you are trying to deduce an interval of
> possible values for each register. You will need to allow intervals to wrap
> around the end of T since (eg) the basic "add" operator in LLVM uses modulo
> arithmetic, i.e. if you add 1 to 2^31-1 you get
barchart error (invalid line type) maybe caused by mangled data frame, & fix() resolving the problem
2005 Mar 02
1
barchart error (invalid line type) maybe caused by mangled data frame, & fix() resolving the problem
...100 87 110 191 71
> [20] 3 48 144 101 115 161 52 164 105 154 266 93 1 53 167 161 130 195
>
> $uext
> [1] 17 12 13 17 14 32 34 5 50 132 93 66 86 66 65 63 54 97 34
> [20] 41 81 123 88 85 213 159 171 158 140 153 75 65 126 252 225 127 192
>
> $uges
> [1] 101 54 84 99 94 155 47 6 65 209 154 122 148 93 165 150 164 288 105
> [20] 44 129 267 189 200 374 211 335 263 294 419 168 66 179 419 386 257 387
>
> $month
> [1] "01" "02" "03" "04" "05" "06" "07"...
2020 Apr 24
2
Pointer comparison folding
Hi,
I am looking at some code that does address comparisons to check whether a given pointer is within a certain memory range. For example:
if (0xff00 <= &a[x] && &a[x] < 0xffff)
This results in IR like:
%2 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x i32], [100 x i32]* @a, i32 0, i32 %0, !dbg !9
%3 = icmp uge i32* %2, inttoptr (i32 65280 to i32*), !dbg !10
%4 = icmp ult i32* %2,
2015 Jan 13
2
[LLVMdev] Floating-point range checks
After writing a simple FPRange, I've hit a stumbling block. I don't know what LLVM code should be extended to use it. I was initially thinking of extending LazyValueInfo, but it appears to be used for passes that don’t address the case that I need for Julia. I’m now wondering if I’m better off extending SimplifyFCmpInst to handle the few cases in question instead of trying to be more
2015 Jan 15
4
[LLVMdev] confusion w.r.t. scalar evolution and nuw
I've been doing some digging in this area (scev, wrapping arithmetic),
learning as much as I can, and have reached a point where I'm fairly
confused about the semantics of nuw in scalar evolution expressions.
Consider the following program:
define void @foo(i32 %begin) {
entry:
br label %loop
loop:
%idx = phi i32 [ %begin, %entry ], [ %idx.dec, %loop ]
%idx.dec = sub nuw i32
2013 Nov 15
2
[LLVMdev] Modular arithmetic processors
I've been playing around with LLVM to write a backend for a rather "simple"
(co-)processor. Assume that only three arithmetic instructions exist: ADD
mod N, SUB mod N and MUL mod N. The modulus N is programmable and stored in
a register. No ordinary arithmetic instructions are available. The word
size is 256-bit.
In other words, the following function, b + c mod N, corresponds to
2015 Jan 28
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: generation of PSAD instruction
Hello,
I was looking at the following test case which is very relevant in imaging applications.
int sad(unsigned char *pix1, unsigned char *pix2)
{
int sum = 0;
for( int x = 0; x < 16; x++ )
{
sum += abs( pix1[x] - pix2[x] );
}
return sum;
}
The llvm IR generated after all the IR
2019 Feb 25
3
Why is there still ineffective code after -o3 optimization?
Hi,
I have some IR module from random generation (mostly ineffective
instructions).
It has a function with void return, and two function arguments where one
is a reference.
Therefore, I expect every instruction not altering the value at the 2nd
arguments address should be ineffective.
Here is the function definition (see below for full ll):
define void @_Z27entityMainDataInputCallbackdRd(double
2017 Mar 14
3
llvm-stress crash
Hi,
Using llvm-stress, I got a crash after Post-RA pseudo expansion, with
machine verifier.
A 128 bit register
%vreg233:subreg_l32<def,read-undef> = LLCRMux %vreg119;
GR128Bit:%vreg233 GRX32Bit:%vreg119
gets spilled:
%vreg265:subreg_l32<def,read-undef> = LLCRMux %vreg119;
GR128Bit:%vreg265 GRX32Bit:%vreg119
ST128 %vreg265, <fi#10>, 0, %noreg;
2013 Nov 15
0
[LLVMdev] Modular arithmetic processors
Hi,
My personal opinion: Just to be sure I understand what you're considering:
you want to write a backend that will produce optimized machine code for a
device with modular arithmetic instructions (not simulate such a device on
a standard CPU)? In which case, won't the same assumptions that are
embodied in the transformations for the case of unsigned 2's complement
arithmetic (in
2012 May 14
0
phyloclim could not be installed in linux - problems on tkrplot dependence
Dear R-helpers, Christoph (author of phyloclim) and Luke (author of
tkrplot),
I would like to get your helps on installing of phyloclim in Ubuntu linux.
It seems a package named 'tkrplot' could not be installed at firstly, then
packages depends on it could not be installed latter.
As I have tested, installation of phyloclim works smoothly in Mac. I
attempted to install these packages in
2015 Jan 15
2
[LLVMdev] confusion w.r.t. scalar evolution and nuw
> We are permitted to turn 'sub nsw i32 %x, 1' into 'add nsw i32 %x, -1'
nsw also has the same problem:
sub nsw int_min, int_min is 0 but
add nsw int_min, (-int_min) is poison
-- Sanjoy
2007 Sep 25
0
[LLVMdev] lli vs JIT diffs on FCmp::ne with NaN operands
I am having a little trouble with the fcmp one instruction on doubles only.
For ordered comparisons, the LLVM manual states that true should be returned
iff neither operands is QNAN. ( http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#i_fcmp)
If I do fcmp one which includes one or both operands as a NaN, the result is
expected to be 0 then.
If I run the bitcode with lli (JIT off), no problem. If I use the
2012 Dec 17
0
[LLVMdev] max/min intrinsics
Maybe we can have two versions of the intrinsic function, "ordered" and "unordered", just like fcmp has [1]. Would that work ?
[1] - http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#fcmp-instruction
On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:14 AM, "Schoedel, Kevin P" <kevin.p.schoedel at intel.com> wrote:
> At Monday, December 17, 2012 2:05 PM, Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com]
2013 Nov 18
1
[LLVMdev] Modular arithmetic processors
Thanks for your insightful suggestions.
Yes, I am programming for a real device that does modular arithmetic (and
only modular arithmetic). The modulus N is fixed during a single launch of
a program. One way I could also come up with is to simply use add i256 %a,
%b to represent a + b mod n, and let LLVM passes to reason about possible
optimizations. However these are not semantically identical
2012 Dec 17
3
[LLVMdev] max/min intrinsics
At Monday, December 17, 2012 2:05 PM, Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com] wrote:
>This part worries me. The new min/max intrinsics will only be useful if we could pattern match cmp/select into them.
Yes, that's the obvious alternative. I don't think we have any strong opinion either way, and fcmp/select is certainly easier to implement.
--
Kevin Schoedel, Software Developer,