similar to: System reboots automatically more or less every two days

Dette er en melding med flere deler i MIME-format. --=_alternative 004C4E4A00257091_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Yes. so (x1*x2*x3*x4*x5*x6*x7*x8)^2 = (x1+x2+x3+x4+x5+x6+x7+x8)^8 ? and there is a difference in (x1*x2*x3*x4*x5*x6*x7*x8)^2 and (x1*x2*x3*x4*x5*x6*x7*x8) althoug the resulting formulas are the same, or? This fikses my problem, but R still crashes for the

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 Hallgeir.Grinde at elkem.no wrote: > And some more informastion I forgot. > R does not crash if I write out the formula: > > set.seed(123) > x1 <- runif(1000) > x2 <- runif(1000) > x3 <- runif(1000) > x4 <- runif(1000) > x5 <- runif(1000) > x6 <- runif(1000) > x7 <- runif(1000) > x8 <- runif(1000) > y <-

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 Hallgeir.Grinde at elkem.no wrote: > Yes. > so (x1*x2*x3*x4*x5*x6*x7*x8)^2 = (x1+x2+x3+x4+x5+x6+x7+x8)^8 ? Yes in the sense that the simplified formula given by terms() is the same. > and there is a difference in > (x1*x2*x3*x4*x5*x6*x7*x8)^2 > and > (x1*x2*x3*x4*x5*x6*x7*x8) > althoug the resulting formulas are the same, or? The first is reduced to the

Dette er en melding med flere deler i MIME-format. --=_alternative 004613C000257091_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" And some more informastion I forgot. R does not crash if I write out the formula: set.seed(123) x1 <- runif(1000) x2 <- runif(1000) x3 <- runif(1000) x4 <- runif(1000) x5 <- runif(1000) x6 <- runif(1000) x7 <- runif(1000) x8 <-

Sorry, quick message to ignore what I wrote before, I got myself confused (probably you too), With a recent trunk build I get this: f: adrp x8, g ldr x8, [x8, :lo12:g] mov w2, #16 mov x1, x0 mov x0, x8 b memcmp This looks more correct, and I need to look a bit more into this (and how clang 10.0.0 behaves).

> From: Peter Dalgaard > > Hallgeir.Grinde at elkem.no writes: > > > Dette er en melding med flere deler i MIME-format. > > --=_alternative 004613C000257091_= > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > > > And some more informastion I forgot. > > R does not crash if I write out the formula: > > > > set.seed(123)

I'm using r223407. Switching to a clean built on r223853, it still gives me: ldr x8, [x21,#8] stp x21, x8, [x19] dmb ishst ldr x8, [x19,#8] str x19, [x8] str x19, [x21,#8] Thanks, Chengyu > On Dec 9, 2014, at 6:32 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9 December 2014 at 15:14, Chengyu Song <csong84 at gatech.edu> wrote:

Hi, I experienced a crash in code compiled with Clang 10.0.0 due to a misaligned 64-bit data access. The (ARMv8) CPU is configured with SCTL.A == 1 (alignment check enable). With SCTLR.A == 0 the code runs as expected. After some investigation I came up with the following reproducer: ---8<-------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<-------8<------- $ cat test.c extern char

</font> <ul class="D"> <li class="D_off">Two Available PCI Express x8 Slots</li> <li class="D_on">Two Available PCI Express x8 Low Profile Slots</li> <li class="D_off">One Available 64-bit/100MHz PCI-X slot</li> </ul> The list has already answered what goes in what slot so I won't repeat that.

Hello, We're evaluating memory tagging (MTE) on some internal workloads. We noticed that stack variables are tagged by an instrumentation pass and heap objects are handled by the allocator (Scudo). How about global variables? We tried a simple case using -march=armv8a+memtag -fsanitize=memtag, but found no tagging: Are we missing anything or tagging globals is still in progress? int

Hi, I am analyzing a data set with greater than 1000 independent cases (collected in an unrestricted manner), where each case has 3 variables associated with it: one, a factor variable with 0/1 levels (called XX), another factor variable with 8 levels (X) and a third response variable with two levels (Y: 0/1). I am trying to see if X1 has an effect on the relationship between X2 and the

Thanks for the confirmation. From the assembly that was sent on the other branch of the thread: > .set .L.str, .L.str.hwasan-3458764513820540928 -3458764513820540928 = 0xd0 << 56 i.e. a "negative" tag. So this appears to be the issue exactly. Peter On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:55 PM Derrick McKee <derrick.mckee at gmail.com> wrote: > Using lld fixes this issue. >

I suspect that this is hitting the issue that I mentioned here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65857#1621335 We may need to do what I suggested there and restrict global tag entropy on non-Android Linux to 7 bits. You can try working around this issue for now by using lld as the linker (-fuse-ld=lld). Peter On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:37 PM Mitch Phillips via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at

SImplify your call to lm using the "." argument instead of manipulating formulas. > strt <- lm(y1 ~ ., data = dat) and you do not need to explicitly specify the "1+" on the rhs for lm, so > frm2<-as.formula(paste(trg," ~ ", paste(xvars,collapse = "+"))) works fine, too. Anyway, doing this gives (but see end of output)" bst <-

Hi, I was looking at some AArch64 benchmarks and noticed some simple cases where addresses are being folded into the address mode computations and was curious as to why. In particular, consider the following simple example: void f2(unsigned long *x, unsigned long c) { x[c] *= 2; } This generates: lsl x8, x1, #3 ldr x9, [x0, x8] lsl x9, x9, #1 str x9, [x0, x8] Given the two

#### I checked through every 3 factor * 3 loading case. #### While, 4 factor * 3 loading failed. #### the data is 6 factor * 3 loading require(sem); cor18<-read.moments(); 1 .68 1 .60 .58 1 .01 .10 .07 1 .12 .04 .06 .29 1 .06 .06 .01 .35 .24 1 .09 .13 .10 .05 .03 .07 1 .04 .08 .16 .10 .12 .06 .25 1 .06 .09 .02 .02 .09 .16 .29 .36 1 .23 .26 .19 .05 .04 .04 .08 .09 .09 1 .11 .13 .12 .03 .05 .03

Thanks for the update, Phillips. Yes, please add me, Stephen and Ana (CCed) to Phabricator reviews. Zhaoshi From: Mitch Phillips <mitchp at google.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 19:10 To: Zhaoshi Zheng <zhaoshiz at quicinc.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Stephen Long <steplong at quicinc.com> Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] [MTE] Tagging Globals Hi Zhaoshi, Currently

Hi, For the following code: void foo (); int main () {foo();} llvm emits "bl foo" Then I set foo at a far address in linking: aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc -Wl,--defsym=foo=0x80000000 a.o -o a.exe I got an error from ld: a.c:(.text+0x8): relocation truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_CALL26 against symbol `foo' define in *ABS* section in a.exe The question is: do I

Hi, I am trying to execute a simple hello world program compiled like so: path/to/compiled/clang -o test --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -march=armv8.5-a -fsanitize=hwaddress --sysroot=/usr/aarch64-linux-gnu/ -L/usr/lib/gcc/aarch64-linux-gnu/10.1.0/ -g test.c However, when I look at the disassembly, there is an unknown instruction listed at 0x2d51c: 000000000002d4c0 main: 2d4c0: ff c3 00 d1

Not at this stage -- no. On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:23 PM Zhaoshi Zheng <zhaoshiz at quicinc.com> wrote: > Mitch, > > > > I forgot to ask: do you have any timeline on sharing it through > Phabricator? > > > > Thanks, > > Zhaoshi > > > > *From:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *On Behalf Of *Zhaoshi > Zheng via llvm-dev