similar to: 1-based arrays and copying vectors

I'm trying to manipulate/change a formula prior to passing it to another function. A simplified example: User passes formula to my function: y~x My function does: lm(transform(y)~x) Here, transform() is added to the model's response. What is the best way to accomplish this?

I'd trying to subclass the "lm" class to produce a "mylm" class whose instances behave like lm objects (are accepted by methods like summary.lm) but have additional data or slots of my own design. For starters: setClass("mylm", "lm") produces the somewhat cryptic: Warning message: Old-style (``S3'') class "mylm" supplied as a

Is there an easy way to do a linear model with an a priori known slope? In essence, I want to minimize the residuals around a line of known slope. -R -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm now going to make the stub patches that Daniel requested. Added llvm/Support/COFF.h and merged in COFF constants from llvm/MC/MCSectionCOFF.h. Zeroth patch is done. http://github.com/Bigcheese/llvm-mirror/commit/2d88aa08a072bb5f8d687b67d1476f23d37a87d4 A svn-style patch against svn HEAD is

Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> writes: >> But you put me on the right track. The problem is that the class is >> returned on the stack. Correction: The class is returned on the FP stack: >> 0x6e08b5b5 <_ZN3Foo6GetFooEv+17>: fldl -0x8(%ebp) >> 0x6e08b5b8 <_ZN3Foo6GetFooEv+20>: leave >> 0x6e08b5b9 <_ZN3Foo6GetFooEv+21>:

hello I'm trying to find out what represents the third number in the numeration of Wine versions. To give an example, there is wine-1.3.35-168-g5b93bb9 I concluded "168" means that the g5b93bb9 commit is 168th in succession after wine-1.3.35, with 1.3.35 being zeroth. Am I right?

Dear all, I am trying to upgrade R on Debian 3.16.0-4-amd64, as the default R version is 3.1.1 (2014). When I try to run ./configure on R-3.3.3, I get an error message saying ... checking for curl-config... /usr/local/bin/curl-config checking libcurl version ... 7.53.1 checking curl/curl.h usability... yes checking curl/curl.h presence... yes checking for curl/curl.h... yes checking if libcurl

Dear Dirk, Do you mean binaries for R-3.3.3? I could not find any link on the page you mention I downloaded R-3.3.3.tar.gz from https://cran.r-project.org/src/base/R-3/ then ran ./configure I also tried ./configure --enable-R-shlib based on a suggestion found in http://jenzopr.github.io/bioinformatics/2016/05/03/r-wheezy-build.html Many thanks, Lucio On 4 April 2017 at 17:17, Dirk

Personal background: Much of my experience is with C on Linux (from 1994). I can read Assembly, however, not write it well (I have had formal training in Assembly on the I386, however, never used it). The system: An AMD 586 embedded system with AM29F040 Chip(s) on board. These two flash chips make up the BIOS and the primary storage. The system was designed and built for use with Caldera

Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes: > BTW, -fpcc-struct-return solves the case that motivated this thread. -fpcc-struct-return is an ABI change, hence it requires "compiling the world". Not acceptable. I'll be interested on hearing ideas about how to determine how a function returns a small struct, without knowing the internals of the struct. -- Oscar

Ram: Let me explain and hopefully Reid or Chris will correct if I have it wrong. The first 0 is the index into a possible array of sbyte[13] arrays that this pointer points to. I expect GetElementPtr works this way is to keep down the proliferation of arrays of arrays in the type table. So you are pointing at the zeroth, and in this case only, array of sbyte[13]. The next 0 actually

On 9-Mar-09, at 12:14 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > GEP overflow is undefined, but this sentence means that *accesses* to > an array must be within its bounds. It is fine to GEP outside the > array as long as you readjust the pointer back before access. Thanks, that was my hope. Maybe this should be spelled out in the langref, especially since it's inconsistent with C, where merely

I'm still working on the next patch, it's going somewhat slowly. I wanted to create a unit test that actually created a union, and in order to do that I had to implement constant unions. And rather than creating a special syntax for constructing a union, I decided that it was simplest to implement the insertvalue instruction for a constant union expression: @foo = constant union {

Take a look at llvm-gcc. Look for HandleAggregateShadowArgument. Evan On Mar 26, 2008, at 10:31 AM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes: > >> BTW, -fpcc-struct-return solves the case that motivated this thread. > > -fpcc-struct-return is an ABI change, hence it requires "compiling the > world". Not acceptable. > > I'll

On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 14:35 -0700, Ralph Giles wrote: > On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 02:17:22PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > > I'm working on support for tagging Speex files for Mutagen[0] and part > > of the specification at [1] is confusing me. It says the first page > > should have granulepos 0 and packetno 0. Does this really mean page > > sequence number 0,

I just finished the initial split up of WinCOFF.h into llvm/Support/COFF.h and lib/MC/WinCOFFObjectWriter.cpp. This includes almost the minimum changes required to split them up. WinCOFFObjectWriter now needs some refactoring to make things more consistent and less verbose. There also seem to be quite a few memory leaks that need to be resolved.

On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: >> Although, I'm not completely sure the transformation is safe, at >> least >> the way you're stating it; unlike add, GEP has undefined overflow, so >> this isn't right in cases like %call == %tmp4 == INT_MIN. > > Hmm, you raise a good point. There's a similar issue even without > overflow,

Hi Duncan. Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> writes: >> define internal i1 @Addr_045442A0() { >> alloca [8 x i8], align 4 ; <[8 x i8]*>:1 [#uses=2] >> alloca i1, align 4 ; <i1*>:2 [#uses=2] >> tail call void @F95478DA5_FFI_FN( [8 x i8]* %1 sret ) > > this call uses the "struct-return" convention (due to the sret attribute). > On

The Rust compiler defines all functions as returning void, with the first parameter being an outparam of the declared return type, ie. fn foo2() -> int { ret 5; } becomes define void @_ZN4foo217_5cb557d30658848cE(i64*, { i64, { %tydesc*, i1, {} } }*) uwtable { store i64 5, i64* %0 ret void } I'm working on generating debug information for Rust, and I'm currently stumped on how

On Dec 6, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > Hi Josh, > > On Dec 4, 2011, at 9:33 PM, Josh Matthews wrote: > >> I'm working on generating debug information for Rust, and I'm >> currently stumped on how to generate DWARF output via LLVM that will >> correctly represent this (eg. when exiting from foo2(), I'd like to >> see "Value returns