similar to: Accessing named elements of a vector

The driver doesn't consider framebuffer pitch and offset, leading to a wrong display in case offset != 0 or pitch != width * bpp. Fix it. Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at redhat.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/bochs/bochs.h | 2 +- drivers/gpu/drm/bochs/bochs_hw.c | 14 ++++++++++---- drivers/gpu/drm/bochs/bochs_kms.c | 3 ++- 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

If bo->width doesn't match fb->width the driver fails to configure the display correctly, resulting in a scrambled display. Fix it. Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at redhat.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/bochs/bochs.h | 2 +- drivers/gpu/drm/bochs/bochs_hw.c | 13 +++++++++---- drivers/gpu/drm/bochs/bochs_kms.c | 1 + 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Dear Tomas,Thank you.Regarding the "unnumbered" arguments, i.e. sprintf('%f %f', 1, 2, 3). This was the case I wanted to report, here a warning can be very useful.Regarding the "numbered" arguments, that is, sprintf('%$1f %$3f', 1, 2, 3). Here, omission of an argument might be intended, for example, in an application with support for multiple languages.

Another way to avoid the problem is to not redefine variables that are arguments. E.g., > Su3 <- function(u=100, l=u, mu=0.53, sigma2=4.3^2, verbose) { if (verbose) { print(c(u, l, mu)) } uNormalized <- u/sqrt(sigma2) lNormalized <- l/sqrt(sigma2) muNormalized <- mu/sqrt(sigma2) c(uNormalized, lNormalized, muNormalized) } > Su3(verbose=TRUE)

Dear R developers, sessionInfo() below Please have a look at the following two versions of the same function: 1. Intended behavior: > Su1 = function(u=100, l=u, mu=0.53, sigma2=4.3^2) + { + print(c(u, l, mu)) # here, l is set to u?s value + u = u/sqrt(sigma2) + l = l/sqrt(sigma2) + mu = mu/sqrt(sigma2) + print(c(u, l, mu)) + } > > Su1() [1] 100.00 100.00 0.53 [1]

Dear R developers, I am wondering if this should raise an error or a warning. > sprintf('%.f, %.f', 1, 2, 3) [1] "1, 2" I am aware that R has ?numbered? sprintf arguments (sprintf('%1$.f', ?), and in that case, omissing of specific arguments may be intended. But in the usual syntax, omission of an argument is probably a mistake. Thank you for your consideration.

Call drm_dev_unregister() first in bochs_pci_remove(). Hook bochs_unload() into the new .release callback, to make sure cleanup is done when all users are gone. Add ready bool to state struct and move bochs_hw_fini() call from bochs_unload() to bochs_pci_remove() to make sure hardware is not touched after bochs_pci_remove returns. Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at redhat.com> ---

Dear Bill, All makes perfect sense (including the late evaluation). I actually discovered the problem by looking at old code which used your proposed solution. Still I find it strange (and, hnestly, I don?t like R?s behavior in this respect), and I am wondering why u is not being copied to L just before u is assigned a new value. Of course, this would require the R interpreter to track all these

Dear R developers, The following command produces an interaction plot with lwd=2. interaction.plot(c(1, 2, 1, 2), c(1, 1, 2, 2), 1:4, lwd=2) In the legend, however, lwd seems to be 1, which does not seem to be intended behavior. Probably the lwd is not correctly forwarded to legend: from the interaction.plot source: legend(xleg, yleg, legend = ylabs, col = col, pch = if (type %in%

Dear R developers, I would like to have R choose the limits of the y-axis semi-automatically, e.g., zero should be included, but the maximum should be chosen depending on the data. Examples: plot(1:10, 1:10) # selects min and max automatically plot(1:10, 1:10, ylim=c(1, 10)) # manual definition plot(1:10, 1:10, ylim=c(0, Inf)) # this would be a nice feature, i.e. lower y limit = 0 defined

Dear R-user Suppose I have the following data y=c(2,1,5,8,11,3,1,7,50,21,33,7,60) x=data.frame(y) for(i in 4:nrow(x)) x[i,] =var(x[i-3:i-1,]) I'm trying to get a new variable with the variance of the 3 previous values (just an example) and with NA in the three first positions. I know that my for() is wrong but I'm not able to find my error. Any idea? Thanks, Marlene.

-------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Gildas Mazo <gildas.mazo at curie.fr> Subject: Re: [R] optimization subject to constraints Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:49:19 +0200 Size: 4924 URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20100810/78862894/attachment.eml>

Dear list, Is anyone aware of a library for sample size calculation in R, similar to NQuery? I have to give a course in this area, and I would like to enable the students playing around with this. Best wishes, Matthias

Hello, One way of preventing that is to use ?force. Just put force(l) right after the commented out print and before you change 'u'. Hope this helps, Rui Barradas Citando Matthias Gondan <matthias-gondan at gmx.de>: > Dear R developers, > > sessionInfo() below > > Please have a look at the following two versions of the same function: > > 1. Intended

Dear list, Apparently, there is no function like sscanf in R. I have a string, "Condition: 311", and I would like to read out the number and store it to a numeric variable. Is there an easy way to do this? Best wishes, Matthias --

Dear R-Users, Is anyone aware of a significance test which allows demonstrating that one distribution dominates another? Let F(t) and G(t) be two distribution functions, the alternative hypothesis would be something like: F(t) >= G(t), for all t null hypothesis: F(t) < G(t), for some t. Best wishes, Matthias PS. This one would be ok, as well: F(t) > G(t), for all t null

Dear R experts, For a fixed seed, the first random number produced by rnorm and runif has the same rank within the distribution, which I find useful. The following ranks differ, however. > set.seed(123) > runif(4) [1] *0.2875775* 0.7883051 *0.4089769* 0.8830174 > set.seed(123) > pnorm(rnorm(4)) [1] 0.2875775 0.4089769 0.9404673 0.5281055 I noticed that rnorm seems to

Mathias, If it's any comfort, I appreciated the example; 'expected' behaviour maybe, but a very nice example for staff/student training! S Ellison > -----Original Message----- > From: R-help [mailto:r-help-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Matthias > Gondan > Sent: 02 September 2017 18:22 > To: r-help at r-project.org > Subject: [R] Strange lazy evaluation of

Dear List, I am aware this is slightly off-topic, but I am sure there are people who already had the problem and who perhaps solved it. I am running long-lasting model fits using constrOptim command. At work there is a linux computer (Quad Core, debian) on which I already have compiled R and Atlas, in the hope that things will go faster on that machine. Atlas offers the possibility to be

My interpretation of the relation between 1-way ANOVA and Wilcoxon's test (wilcox.test() in R) is the following. 1-way ANOVA is to test if two or multiple distributions are the same, assuming all the distributions are normal and have equal variances. Wilcoxon's test is to test two distributions are the same without assuming what their distributions are. In this sense, I'm wondering