search for: visible

...ng foreign function calls ... WARNING Foreign function calls without 'PACKAGE' argument: .Fortran("cov1", ...) See the chapter 'System and foreign language interfaces' of the 'Writing R Extensions' manual. * checking R code for possible problems ... NOTE acfMod: no visible binding for global variable 'top' acfMod : onOK: no visible binding for global variable 'top' acfMod: no visible binding for global variable 'buttonsFrame' aggConv: no visible binding for global variable 'top' aggConv : onOK: no visible binding for global variable ...

...s below to be expected from make check-all ? using the rc today, Aug 21, on Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 4 (Nahant Update 4) Kernel 2.6.9-42.0.8.ELsmp on an x86_64 Paul ________ .... checking package 'utils' .... * checking R code for possible problems ... NOTE install.packages: no visible global function definition for ?.install.winbinary? install.packages: no visible global function definition for ?.install.macbinary? .... checking package 'stats' .... * checking R code for possible problems ... NOTE glm.fit: no visible binding for global variable ???n??? * checking...

...first one being "User", the second one being "Visibility". The corresponding users table holds address informations regarding a User. The visibilities table holds visibility settings for the individual columns of the users table (i.e. firstname, lastname, country should be visible to everybody while the credit card data should be only visible to the admin, and so on) for individual users. It has practically the same schema as the users table and a foreign key, namely user_id. The relationship between the tables is 1:1. Now I have created an "edit user profile"...

...package can be loaded with stated dependencies ... OK * checking for unstated dependencies in R code ... OK * checking S3 generic/method consistency ... OK * checking replacement functions ... OK * checking foreign function calls ... OK * checking R code for possible problems ... NOTE setTitle: no visible binding for '<<-' assignment to '.locale' summ: no visible binding for global variable '.data' summ: no visible global function definition for 'date.mdy' summ: no visible binding for global variable '.ylab.for.summ' summ: no visible binding for global v...

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >> Now, there are a number of things about linkage that are kindof orthogonal, >> and it would be nice to model them more orthogonally. That would be a major >> change in representation, though. Absent the will to do that, I propose >> that we: >> - remove/deprecate

Please send any comments. As mentioned at the end I will follow up with some patches as soon as they are cleaned up and I create some test cases. RFC: Safe Whole Program Devirtualization Enablement =================================================== High Level Summary ------------------ The goal of the changes described in this RFC is to support aggressive Whole Program Devirtualization without

...d via a namespace (and not attached): [1] Biobase_2.8.0 biomaRt_2.4.0 BSgenome_1.16.5 DBI_0.2-5 [5] RCurl_1.4-3 RSQLite_0.9-2 rtracklayer_1.8.1 tools_2.11.1 Thanks, Elizabeth The full grid.input.Parameters: Browse[1]> grid.input.Parameters [1] " <anonymous>: no visible global function definition for ?myreadPairedAlignments?\n <anonymous>: no visible global function definition for ?ScanBamParam?\n <anonymous>: no visible global function definition for ?scanBamFlag?\n <anonymous>: no visible global function definition for ?matchBamToNames?\n &...

Recently I started getting these warnings - thousands of them - and I'm not sure what I did to cause them or how to solve them: ld: warning llvm::MemoryBuffer::getBufferStart() const has different visibility (1) in /usr/local/lib/libLLVMSupport.a(MemoryBuffer.o) and (2) in /usr/local/lib/libLLVMSupport.a(CommandLine.o) ld: warning

Hello, JIT compiler interferes with internal R completions: compiler::enableJIT(2) utils:::functionArgs("density", '') gives: utils:::functionArgs("density", '') Note: no visible global function definition for 'bw.nrd0' Note: no visible global function definition for 'bw.nrd' Note: no visible global function definition for 'bw.ucv' Note: no visible global function definition for 'bw.bcv' Note: no visible global function definition for ...

Sorry to intervene. Argument passed to 'eval' is evaluated first. So, eval(x <- 2) is effectively like { x <- 2; eval(2) } , which is effectively { x <- 2; 2 } . The result is visible. eval(expression(x <- 2)) or eval(quote(x <- 2)) or evalq(x <- 2) gives the same effect as x <- 2 . The result is invisible. In function 'eval2', res <- eval(withVisible(expr), envir=envir, ...) is effectively res <- withVisible(expr) . ------------------- Would it be...

Would it be possible to have the value of eval() preserve the "visibility" of the value of the expression? "PROBLEM": # Invisible > x <- 1 # Visible > eval(x <- 2) [1] 2 "TROUBLESHOOTING": > withVisible(x <- 1) $value [1] 1 $visible [1] FALSE > withVisible(eval(x <- 2)) $value [1] 2 $visible [1] TRUE WORKAROUND: eval2 <- function(expr, envir=parent.frame(), ...) { res <- eval(wi...

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-August/016763.html On 2008-09-05, at 22:46, Talin wrote: > Recently I started getting these warnings - thousands of them - and > I'm > not sure what I did to cause them or how to solve them: > > ld: warning llvm::MemoryBuffer::getBufferStart() const has different > visibility (1) in

Hello, I have a question about addTaskCallback It is said that the argument visible allows to know wether the result of the top-level evaluation was printed or not. Nevertheless, in the following example, I encountered a problem, as it seems not all printed objects are visible... Could someone tell me where is the tip? TIA ---------------------------------------------------...

Dear R-Helpers, I suspect I'm about to ask a FAQ, but I haven't been able to find an answer in the FAQ, AItR or an R Site Search. When I look at the methods of summary (below) it says, "Non-visible functions are asterisked". I looked at the help file for summary.princomp, which did not comment on it being non-visible. I ran its help file example, which printed visible output. I did not notice how it differed from other functions, like summary.data.frame that is not marked non-invisible....

Hi! I have a question about whole program devirtualization pass. According to my understanding devirtualization is performed only for the classes that have hidden LTO visibility and this visibility is controlled by attributes in the source level or command line options. So visibility analysis is currently performed only in the front-end. But LLVM has LTO internalization pass that uses

I am using some constants that should be visible in the controller and in a view. Declaring the constant in the controller does not make the constant visible in the view. So my question: Where can I declare the constant to be visible in all views and controllers ? Thanks a lot in advance Christian -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/...

Dear list, This is related to the change discussed in the thread "no visible binding for global variables for data sets in a package". I went to look at the Check results for one of my packages (analogue) on CRAN: http://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_analogue.html Under the r-devel build machines I'm seeing a lot of things like this: Stratiplot...

...of these data sets. These now trigger the notes below from R CMD check run with Win builder, R-devel. How can I avoid these? * using R Under development (unstable) (2014-08-25 r66471) * using platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32 (64-bit) ... * checking R code for possible problems ... NOTE Label: no visible binding for global variable 'battingLabels' Label: no visible binding for global variable 'pitchingLabels' Label: no visible binding for global variable 'fieldingLabels' battingStats: no visible binding for global variable 'Batting' battingStats: no visible global fu...

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:41 AM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com <mailto:rjmccall at apple.com>> wrote: > Okay, so, it sounds to me like LLVM basically treats strong definitions as protected, then. Should we just formalize that? > > I guess the proposal here would be: > 1.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Marc Dietrich <marvin24 at gmx.de> wrote: >> Patch 1 adds a check for the compilers visibility macro to configure.ac. >> Patch 2 avoids redefined symbol errors in clang of the tls entry points. >> Based on a suggestion from Rafael Ávila de Espíndola