similar to: Extracting arithmetic mean for specific values from multiple .txt-files

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21418051 for the full reference. I don't have an electronic copy, but I do have that issue of Biometrics in my office. I'll have a copy sent over. Terry On 07/10/2012 04:08 PM, r-help-request at r-project.org wrote: > Send R-help mailing list submissions to > r-help at r-project.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide

Could someone please tell me how to escape the ''division'' arithmetic symbol in a model or controller? I''ve searched around and cannot find a solution. I''ve got the following in my model: def avg_risk t = 0 self.audits.each{|key| t = t + key.control_rating } t = t / self.audits.count #this line doesn''t work... I''ve even

I'm an old APL fossil and I got used to work with nested arrays there. In APL(2) you can write 1+(1 2 3)(4 5 6 7 8 9) and get (2 3 4)(5 6 7 8 9 10). A similar concept is R's lists. So it takes me by surprise to learn that 1+list(1:3,4:9) delivers an Error in 1 + list(1:3, 4:9) : non-numeric argument to binary operator Is there any particular reason why this doesn't work

Not sure if you guys want these patches, should I just turn off -Wpointer-arith in the PPC build or everyone else can turn it on? Signed-off-by: Jimi Xenidis <jimix@watson.ibm.com> --- diff -r 66cd49a0e239 xen/drivers/video/vga.c --- a/xen/drivers/video/vga.c Fri Aug 18 13:30:01 2006 -0400 +++ b/xen/drivers/video/vga.c Fri Aug 18 13:43:30 2006 -0400 @@ -185,17 +185,17 @@ static inline

%foo1 = constant <4 x float> <float 1.0, float 2.0, float 3.0, float 4.0>; void %main() { %x = mul <4 x float> %foo1, %foo1 ret void } llvm-as complained " Reference to an invalid definition: 'foo1' of type '<4 x float>' ". I searched all test script in llvm/test, and I found the only way to use packed constant is: %foo1 = uninitialized

On Mar 25, 2008, at 8:25 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > In looking at the LLVM reference manual, it is conspicuous that (a) > the > IR does not define condition codes, and (b) the IR does not define > opcodes that return condition results in addition to their > computational > results. We currently don't have this because noone has implemented it yet. It would be

Hi, > There would appear to be three approaches: > > 1. Introduce a CC register class into the IR. This seems to be a > fairly major overhaul. > > 2. Introduce a set of scalar and fp computation quasi-instructions > that accept the same arguments as their computational counterparts, > but produce *only* the condition code. For example: > >

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > I want to background process this for a bit, but it would be helpful to > discuss some approaches first. > > There would appear to be three approaches: > > 1. Introduce a CC register class into the IR. This seems to be a > fairly major overhaul. > > 2. Introduce a set of scalar and fp computation quasi-instructions

Hi Chris, > Why not define an "add with overflow" intrinsic that returns its value and > overflow bit as an i1? what's the point? We have this today with apint codegen (if you turn on LegalizeTypes). For example, this function define i1 @cc(i32 %x, i32 %y) { %xx = zext i32 %x to i33 %yy = zext i32 %y to i33 %s = add i33 %xx, %yy %tmp = lshr i33 %s, 32 %b = trunc

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Chris, > >> Why not define an "add with overflow" intrinsic that returns its value and >> overflow bit as an i1? > > what's the point? We have this today with apint codegen (if you turn on > LegalizeTypes). For example, this function The desired code is something like: foo: addl %eax, %ecx jo

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: >> Why not define an "add with overflow" intrinsic that returns its value and >> overflow bit as an i1? > > Chris: > > I understand several simple ways to implement add with carry. Your > suggestion is one of them. What I'm trying to understand is how to > handle the conditional code issue generally.

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:11 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > >> Why not define an "add with overflow" intrinsic that returns its value and > >> overflow bit as an i1? > > > > Chris: > > > > I understand several simple ways to implement add with carry. Your > > suggestion is one of them. What

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > I guess my take is that when faced with an architectural question that > you eventually may have to address in full, quick fixes tend to accrete > that have to be undone when you get around to the general solution, and > these make implementing the general thing harder -- unless you have > thought it out in advance and the quick

> > Don't forget prover. :-) > > Say on that note here's something that I want to see: a formal > semantics > for LLVM in for example higher order logic. This would probably > not be > that difficult. > > The problem that this solves is that current verified compiler efforts > appear to be highly specific to both the language and the target. > >

> Also, I think that a verified compiler is not the right goal. I think > that what we want is a verifying compiler. We are not interested in > whether the compiler is correct in any general sense. We are interested > in whether the transformations performed by the compiler during some > particular compilation are correct. My intuition is the same: translation validation sounds far

> Except that some aspects of the host platform leak through > to .bc files. This may or may not be a problem. I know a bit about how Michael Norrish dealt with this sort of thing in his formal semantics for C. For example, integer width is modeled as a constant, but one with an unspecified value. Other C level choices such as order of evaluation of function arguments are modeled using

On Mar 27, 2008, at 3:32 PM, John Regehr wrote: > This is what tenure is for. Or did Vikram start this > project as an assistant professor? If so, my hat is off :). > > John Regehr Well, Chris and I did start this when I was a very junior assistant professor, 2nd year in fact! But the hat-tipping should go to Chris: he took our initial ideas, ran with it, made it his MS

On gcc's side, this is a simple missed opt on the part of builtin lowering. As a result, the gcc code ends up with a call to muldc3 (complex = 2x2 multiply double) and the llvm code doesn't. GCC should be fixed in a second, and with that, there is no appreciable performance difference between the two. On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: >

Hi all, I'm pretty new to the community, but I've run into a number of questions while building a backend for a custom target. I'll keep it to one topic per thread, though. My target has arithmetic instructions (add, sub, etc...) which all set the flags register. There is no explicit comparison instruction for my target. The conditional branching instructions check the flags

Hi all, I'm pretty new to the community, but I've run into a number of questions while building a backend for a custom target. I'll keep it to one topic per thread, though. My target has arithmetic instructions (add, sub, etc...) which all set the flags register. There is no explicit comparison instruction for my target. The conditional branching instructions check the flags