Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "Cumsum with a max and min value"
2009 May 02
1
integer ranges in R vs C and Java
Hello,
I'm using R-2.9 and have a question about integer ranges. On C, (OS X
platform),
LONG_MIN and LONG_MAX(from limits.h) correspond to -2147483648(-2^31)
and 2147483647 (2^31-1)
In Java(1.4), Integer.MIN_VALUE and Integer.MAX_VALUE have the same values.
On R, as.integer(2^31-1) is the maximum (without returning NA) but the
lowest is -2147483647 (-2^31+1)
> as.integer((-2)^31)
[1] NA
2011 Dec 31
1
Pressure sensitivity not working on Photoshop CS or CS2
Hello! I have a problem with my Genius tablet. It works on GIMP (native) but not on Photoshop, I tried CS and CS2. I got how to make a log file from another thread, but it was old and photoshop version was different.
Tablet is a Genius G-Pen 4500. Name UC-LOGIC Tablet WP5540U. Distro is Arch Linux, Wine package version is 1.3.36-1.
Thanks a lot :).
Here is the log:
Code:
2010 Oct 12
5
aggregate with cumsum
Hello everybody,
Data is
myd <- data.frame(id1=rep(c("a","b","c"),each=3),id2=rep(1:3,3),val=rnorm(9))
I want to get a cumulative sum over each of id1. trying aggregate does not work
myd$pcum <- aggregate(myd[,c("val")],list(orig=myd$id1),cumsum)
Please suggest a solution. In real the dataframe is huge so looping with for and subsetting is not a
2009 Nov 21
2
how to ignore NA when using cumsum?
I would like to cumulatively sum rows in a matrix, in which each row has 1
NA value. The usual "na.rm=TRUE" does not seem to work with the command
cumsum. Is there another way to ignore the NAs or do I need to figure out a
different way to do this?
Here's an example matrix of title "proportion":
Ntrail Strail NFJD Baldy Onion Crane
[1,]
2016 Mar 16
3
RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form
=== PROBLEM === (See this bug https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26445)
IR contains code for loading a float from float * and storing it to a float
* address. After canonicalization of load in InstCombine [1], new bitcasts
are added to the IR (see bottom of the email for code samples). This
prevents select speculation in SROA to work. Also after SROA we have
bitcasts from int32 to float.
2016 Mar 16
2
RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How do it interact with the "typeless pointers" work?
>
Right - the goal of the typeless pointer work is to fix all these bugs
related to "didn't look through bitcasts" in optimizations. Sometimes
that's going to mean more work (because the code
2016 Mar 22
0
RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form
Back to the discussion on the RFC, I still see some advantage in following
the proposed solution. I see two paths forward:
1- Change canonical form, possibly lower memcpy to non-integer load and
store in InstCombine. Then teach the backends to convert that to integer
load and store if that is more profitable. Notice that we are talking about
loads that have no use other than store. So it is a
2016 Mar 16
3
RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Ehsan Amiri <ehsanamiri at gmail.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> Could you give us an update on the status of typeless pointer work? How
> much work is left and when you think it might be ready?
>
It's a bit of an onion peel, really - since it will eventually involve
generalizing/fixing every optimization that's currently leaning on typed
2016 Mar 22
2
RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form
I don't know enough about the tradeoff for 1, but 2 seems like a bandaid for something that is not a correctness issue neither a regression. I'm not sure it justifies "bandaid patches" while there is a clear path forward, i.e. typeless pointers, unless there is an acknowledgement that typeless pointers won't be there before a couple of years.
--
Mehdi
> On Mar 22, 2016,
2016 Mar 22
0
RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form
I'd phrase this differently: being pointer-bitcast agnostic is a step
towards support typeless pointers. :) We can either become bitcast
agnostic all in one big change or incrementally. Personally, I'd prefer
the later since it reduces the risk associated with enabling typeless
pointers in the end.
Philip
On 03/22/2016 12:16 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote:
> I don't know
2016 Mar 22
0
RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form
Ultimately everything is going to be made to not rely on the types of
pointers - that's nearly equivalent to bitcast-ignorant (the difference
being that the presence of an extra instruction (the bitcast) might trip up
some optimizations - but the presence of the /type/ information implied by
the bitcast should not trip up or be necessary for optimizations (two sides
of the same coin))
If
2016 Mar 22
0
RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> To: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>, "David Blaikie"
> <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, uweigand at de.ibm.com, "Tom
> Stellard" <thomas.stellard at
2016 Mar 22
2
RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form
I feel very strongly that blocking work on making optimization
bitcast-ignorant on the typeless pointer work would be a major mistake.
Unless we expected the typeless pointer work to be concluded within the
near term (say 3-6 months maximum), we should not block any development
which would be accepted in the typeless pointer work wasn't planned.
In my view, this is one of the largest
2007 May 21
2
sequentially process a list
Hi dear R users,
I'm a R beginner and I have a basic question about sequential treatments of lists.
I have a time based (i.e. events are consecutive) list of values of a biological property.
Like :
time value
1 5
2 10
3 7
4 10
5 19
6 21
7 20
8 18
9 10
10 7
11 8
12 12
13 17
14 19
15 24
16 18
17 15
18
2016 Mar 22
0
RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form
This is roughly what I wrote...
> On Mar 22, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote:
>
> I feel very strongly that blocking work on making optimization bitcast-ignorant on the typeless pointer work would be a major mistake. Unless we expected the typeless pointer work to be concluded within the near term (say 3-6 months maximum), we should not block
2016 Mar 22
2
RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form
But not what David was stating, unless I misread? I was specifically
responding to David's wording:
"If we're talking about making an optimization able to ignore the
bitcast instructions - yes, that work is unnecessary & perhaps
questionable given the typeless pointer work. Not outright off limits,
but the same time might be better invested in moving typeless pointers
2007 Feb 19
2
Integrate scruffy graph in rails view?
Hi everybody,
I''m using scruffy to create some graphs, and would like to integrate
them into a regular view (i.e. show them in an <img> tag).
However, I get errors when using img_tag, or the image doesn''t load if
I try saving the graph to disk and then loading them in html.
Generating the graph and linking to it works, however then I only have
the graph open in a new
2016 Mar 22
0
RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form
Sorry I should have been more clear (writing to many email in parallel)
You're right. I was adding a +1 to you here.
Especially I wrote "unless there is an acknowledgement that typeless pointers won't be there before a couple of years" with the PassManager in mind, and I was expecting from David some good indication of a timeframe for the typeless pointers.
If the typeless
2016 Mar 22
4
RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form
I don't really mind, but the intermediate stage will not be very nice: that a lot of code / tests that needs to be written with bitcast, and all of that while they are deemed to disappear. The added value isn't clear to me considering the added work. I'm not sure it wouldn't add more work for all the cleanup required by the "typeless pointer", but I'm not sure
2016 Mar 22
0
RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form
Thanks.
*Phillip, *As Hal said I do not think (1) is a very large item. Please let
me know if I am mistaken.
*David *I think (1) is more inline with typeless pointer work than (2).
Contributing to typeless pointer work will be great, but given its unknown
time frame we cannot stop fixing existing problems. Of course, we should
follow an approach consistent with the long-term solution.
On Tue,