similar to: Checking the assumptions for a proper GLM model

hello, I am planning a fairly large hotel VoIP system, using analog phones. It will consist of about 100 analog phones, that must have access to a VoIP server. I am considering an option to use a couple of asterisk boxes, bundled with a total of four TDM2460E cards, and one TDM2451E card. Has anyone on this list done something similar? It would be great to hear some comments regarding a smilar

Hello! I'm thinking of applying a censored regression model to cross-sectional data, using either the tobit (package survival) or the censReg function (package censReg). The dependent variable is left and right-censored. My hopefully not too silly question is this: I understand that heteroskedasticity and nonnormal errors are even more serious problems in a censored regression than in an

Dear all, I have been using the lrm function in R to run an ordinal logistic regression and I am a bit confused about the methods for checking the model assumptions. I have produced residual plots in R of the score.binary type which I think look ok. However, the partial type plots show bell shaped patterns and have crossing lines, indicating violation of parallelism. However, I noticed

> I don't think that was the conclusion of the discussion? I mean the > result was that a NULL pointer should be explicitly valid if the length > argument is zero. That's a bit more restrictive. Yeah there's a design space here. I don't care about the result but am volunteering to document whatever people want. John

On Sep 22, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Victor Hernandez wrote: > On Sep 22, 2009, at 6:11 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > >> Hi Victor, this code from the verifier broke the Ada front-end build: >> >> const Module* M = CI.getParent()->getParent()->getParent(); >> Constant *MallocFunc = M->getFunction("malloc"); >> >> if (CI.getOperand(0) ==

On Sep 22, 2009, at 6:11 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Victor, this code from the verifier broke the Ada front-end build: > > const Module* M = CI.getParent()->getParent()->getParent(); > Constant *MallocFunc = M->getFunction("malloc"); > > if (CI.getOperand(0) == MallocFunc) { > const PointerType *PTy = > >

From: me at prestoncrawford.com > They could not do the latter as far as I understand it. Because > Fedora Core is not the source code (letter for letter) of RHEL. From: "Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org>" > Every RHEL package as a 1:1 version to Fedora, typically Fedora > Core, possibly Fedora Development (as it seems MySQL 4 was). > This is fact. Nothing

That sounds like a bug, yes. Please file a bug? :) Roman On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 6:26 AM Bozhenov, Nikolai <nikolai.bozhenov at intel.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > As I can see, recently LLVM switched to using assume bundles to encode alignment information: https://reviews.llvm.org/rG78de7297abe2e8fa782682168989c70e3cb34a5c > > However, it seems that the ValueTracking cannot

Hi, I was looking at configure.in for R-1.4.1 and in the case "${host_cpu}" in part under alpha CPU's, the switch of -mieee for g77 and -fpe3 otherwise is an OSF specific, not alpha specific issue. In particular, if someone used f2c-f77 (shell script which emulates a fortran compiler with f2c and the c compiler), they'd get the broken -fpe3. I'd probably either test for

Hello there, I am trying to run an ANOVA model using a non-Standard F ratio. Imagine that the treatments (treatments 1 & 2) are applied to the row not to individual samples. Thus the row is the experimental unit. Therefore my error term in my ANOVA table should be the error associated with with row. The question is how do I check the assumptions of an ANOVA model when I have a non-standard F

Hi All, I am doing linear mixed model analysis for my multi-location experiment using R package "lme4". I just wonder whether I should check my data first to see whether they meet the three assumptions of ANOVA, that is, independence, normality and homogeneity. I saw a lot of examples and the manual of lme4, but no one did data check first. In my experiment, the assumption of

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, John Regehr via llvm-dev wrote: > I propose documenting in the LangRef that memcpy and related intrinsics are > defined even when src and dst don't refer to valid storage as long as the > length argument is zero. Then we commit to implementing that behavior. Is > that OK with everyone? If so I can update the doc. I don't think that was

A question about the layout of structs: I decided to make my vtables out of structs rather than arrays. In other words, instead of being a table of opaque pointers, I decided to individually declare each entry with the correct type for that method. I figure that the various optimizers could do a better job if I preserve the type info. OK, so we come to the issue of inheritance: Suppose I have

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Jay Foad wrote: > Various parts of LLVM seem to assume that the ABI for a varargs > function is compatible with the ABI for a non-varargs function, so This is due to 'K&R' C function handling. In K&R and ANSI C, you can do stuff like this: void foo(); void bar() { foo(1, 2, 3); } void foo(int a, int b, int c) {} and it needs to work. > (I

Hello and thanks in advance I am running a glm in R the code is as follows with residual diagnostic code below model4<-glm(Biomass~(Treatment+Time+Site)^2, data=bobB, family=quasi(link="log", variance="mu")) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) plot(model2) to test the effect of grazing exclusion of feral horses for a Phd with following factors: Treatment - 3 levels which are grazed

> So, the pointer arguments of memcpy *shall* (a violation of a shall > clause is UB, per §4/2) have valid values, even though the function will > copy zero characters. This is true in C but the question was about LLVM intrinsics. Since the LangRef does not mention any such restriction, I would assume that memcpy(0,0,0) is not UB in LLVM. If it is UB then we must update the LangRef

Hi Victor, > What does the Ada front-end declare malloc as? I don't really want to tell you because a correct solution should work no matter what malloc is defined to be :) What I mean by "work" is that if malloc has the standard prototype then you perform transforms on it, and otherwise you should probably just ignore it. That said, Ada outputs malloc as: i32 @malloc(i32)

All, we recently had a user report an issue associated with utilizing LLVM-MC as the desired assembler in place of GNU’s GAS. They are utilizing a tangled mess of automake scripts to build this respective software package and have decided to manually override the “CCAS” macro to point directly to LLVM-MC (rather than using Clang). Apparently, automake assumes that whatever “compiler” (as it is

Hi all, when I call the llvm.memcpy/memmove/memset.* intrinsics, typically I have to pass in valid (non-dangling, non-NULL pointers) of the given alignment. However, to what extent to these rules apply when the count is 0? Concretely (for any variant of the three aforementioned intrinsics): Is it UB to call them on a dangling pointer when count is 0? On a pointer of less than the given

I've been involved with getting better data for running Asterisk on the Amazon EC2 cloud computing system. Here are some calculations I've made on costs based on current published prices on Amazon's system. Feel free to tell me that I'm wrong with these calculations - but be specific if you find any problems, as I suspect others may glom onto these figures as gospel and