similar to: Please help me simplify my manipulation and printing of function calls

Could a method be added to use the VAD from the preprocessor to send the packet with the 'dtx_enable' flag in it, so the decoder on the other end knows it's in dtx mode? (and SPEEX_GET_DTX_STATUS returns 1) At the moment, I can hack around it by doing something like: if (VAD for prev frame && ! VAD for this frame) { iArg = 0;

Dear R Community, One thing that always bugged me about R is the abundance of multi-level nested statements, like: cumsum(ifelse(c(1,diff(v)),1,0)) because: a) you have to read them inside out as opposed to left-to-right b) in the console you always have to go back and type the parenthesis if you want to nest your statement I kind of like the UNIX pipe operator as a very good abstraction of a

Hi, It could (and should) definitely be done, but it's somewhere (unfortunately not on top) on my TODO list. I think the simplest way (until I really integrate the preprocessor with the codec, which will take a while) to do it is to add a speex_encoder_ctl() call as you proposed. I'd call it SPEEX_SET_EXT_VAD_STATUS and I'm willing to merge a patch :-) Jean-Marc Le samedi 03

Dear all, I would like to log the calls to my functions. I am trying to do this using the function match.call(): fTest<-function(x) { theCall<-match.call() print(theCall) return(x) } > fTest(2) fTest(x = 2) [1] 2 I can see "theCall" printed into the console, but I don't manage to convert it into a character to write it into a log file

> Hi, > > It could (and should) definitely be done, but it's somewhere > (unfortunately not on top) on my TODO list. I think the simplest way > (until I really integrate the preprocessor with the codec, which will > take a while) to do it is to add a speex_encoder_ctl() call as you > proposed. I'd call it SPEEX_SET_EXT_VAD_STATUS and I'm willing to merge > a

Hi John, On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:43 AM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > Does the debug facilities in LLVM TOT, at present, maintain information > better than LLVM 2.6 (i.e., if a front-end puts the debug information in, > will the optimizations not take it out)?  Does the information that the > llvm-gcc front-end adds comparable to what llvm-gcc in LLVM 2.6 does?

Dear useRs, Some time ago I queried the list as to an efficient way of building a function which acts as ls() but with a different default for all.names: http://tolstoy.newcastle.edu.au/R/e6/help/09/03/7588.html I have struck upon a solution which so far has performed admirably. In particular, it uses ls() and not its explicit source code, so only has a dependency on its name and the name of

Hello Group, I could use an advice on how SEXP handles work. My aim is to implement a system where I initially set a few global variables that are used for communication between C and R code. Then I do some work with R code and periodically call a function of my own that will update the system state. Such a design is useful for many purposes (for GUIs to name one). I am not entirely sure that R

Yes it is. I'm remote at the moment so I can't send you the code but google for mobile remote receiver and you'll find what you are looking for. Lots of people do it so they don't have calls to cell phones picked up by voicemail. Cheers dean -----Original Message----- From: Pete Kay <petedao at gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:27 PM To: Asterisk Users Mailing

Posting recent offline discussion... On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Marius Tibeica <mtibeica at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Liam, > > I've added the Enquire class and designed a query spec structured as a JS > object. Hope you like it :) > I'll probably be off a few days (there is a national holiday Tuesday which > means i have a long weekend :D) but maybe I'll

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Patrick Meredith wrote: > Somehow it fails with operand out of bounds when the number of operands > is 2 and I am asking for the second operand. Second meaning operand 1. Okay, so you have something like this: if (CallInst *CI = dyn_cast<CallInst>(...)) { ... = CI->getOperand(1); } Can you send in this snippet of code, the assertion, and the

void MetaSplit::handleProgramUses(Value *V){ if(!isa<BasicBlock>(V)) programValues.insert(V); if(User *U = dyn_cast<User>(V)){ User::op_iterator OB = U->op_begin(), OE = U->op_end(); for(; OB != OE; ++OB){ if(CallInst *CI = dyn_cast<CallInst>(*OB)){ Function *F = CI->getCalledFunction(); if(F == ii || F == fi || F == vi || F == di || F == ci

Well, I thought I knew how to fix the problem, but it seems my changes didn't help at all. The frame index is being created when FuncInfo->set() is called in SelectionDAGISel::runOnFunction(). This occurs at line 293 in SelectionDAGBuild.cpp when dealing with the alloca instructions. I've found the CopyToReg that is being issued occurs in LowerCALL and it is this one that fails. When I

On Tuesday 24 February 2009 22:19:27 Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > What i was trying to say is that if you have > > i32 a() { > %1 = tailcall b() > ret %1 > } > > > i32 b() { > %1 = tailcall c() > ret %1 > } > > i32 c() { > %1 = tailcall d() > ret %1 > } > > i32 d() { > ret i32 5 > } > > only d() will actually

Dear expeRts, The order in which the variables vary in expand.grid() is often unintuitive. I would like to suggest a 'method' slot for expand.grid() which requires only very little changes (100% backward compatible) and which allows one to control this order. Please find attached diffs against R-devel. Cheers, Marius ### ./src/library/base/R/expand.grid.R

0, i32 %1) >> >> Note that if you have a series of sequential recursive tail calls this >> move will only performed once (at the bottom of the recursion, >> respectively when the recursion returns) so it's impact on performance >> should be minimal. > > Hmm, that makes it sound as though the moves between a tail call and the > following return are

Devang Patel wrote: > Hi John, > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:04 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> 1) I recall reading somewhere that a few optimizations in LLVM 2.6 strip >> away debug information when such information interferes with >> optimization. Is this correct, >> > > Yes. > >

Dear list members, Does anyone know how to use rm() to remove only variables but not declared functions from the environment ? I understand I could name all the functions with, let's say "f_something", make sure that all variables do not start with "f_" and then remove all BUT objects starting with "f_". However, I have already defined all the functions and it

Hi: This is my first patch submission. Hopefully, this is the proper the protocol. Attached is a patch for the llc ARM backend: Added mechanism to generate switch table in a data section rather than having it interleaved with the code. This is controlled by command line flags and off by default. Also, tried to document and improve the code where I modified it. Robert -------------- next part

Hei! Here's my problem. I have an Asterisk with SS7 and SIP trunks. Asterisk version is 1.6. I'm setting up a custom CDR fields and I was wondering is there a way to know who initiated a hangup? Asterisk must be aware of that info somehow, cause in queue_log, that info is present (completecaller, completeagent) Is there a way to get that info on the regular SS7 to SIP (and vica versa)